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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Amendments/Response filed on January 22, 2026. Claims 1, 13, and 19 have been amended. No additional claims have been added. No claims have been cancelled. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendments
The examiner fully acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 13 and 19 filed on January 22, 2026. The applicant’s amendments to claim 1 are sufficient to overcome the rejection of claims, as presented in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, which previously indicated the claims as being obvious in view of Krebs (US PG Pub No. 20180333736) and Caro et al. (US PG Pub No. 20150020344).
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-9, filed January 22, 2026 have been fully considered.
103 Rejection of Independent claims 1, 13 and 19: The examiner agrees that the rejection previously set for fails to disclose or render obvious each and every feature set forth in the amended independent claims 1, 13 and 19. The amended claims respectively require the recited porous spray bar to be “in the airflow pathway”, whereas the spray bar of Krebs is shown adjacent to the airflow pathway.
However, the application is not considered to be yet in conditions for allowance. Upon further search and consideration in light the presently filed amendments, a new rejection is set forth, wherein the shortcomings of Krebs are remedied through the teachings of Cannan (US Patent No. 3919729), which discloses a cleaning apparatus employing vacuum and spray functions with a spray bar situated in the nozzle, surrounded by it and within the airflow pathway. Please see the updated rejection set for within the action below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krebs (US PG Pub No. 20180333736) in view of Caro et al. (US PG Pub No. 20150020344) and Cannan (US Patent No. 3919729).
In regards to claim 1, Krebs discloses
an accessory tool (accessory tool 100, fig. 1-6) usable with an extraction cleaner (vacuum cleaner, fig. 1; [0017]) for cleaning a surface, the accessory tool comprising:
a tool body (see fig. 2 - ann. 1) defining a fluid pathway (reservoir outlet 148, fig. 3, 4 and 6), an airflow pathway (airflow pathway 140, fig. 3 and 6), and
PNG
media_image1.png
496
760
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a suction nozzle (suction nozzle 120 including housing 110, upper housing 112 and lower housing 114, fig. 1-6) connected to the airflow pathway,
wherein the tool body is connectable to said extraction cleaner (vacuum cleaner, fig. 1; [0017]) via an accessory hose (vacuum hose 34, fig. 1), and
wherein the airflow pathway (airflow pathway 140, fig. 3 and 6) is configured to connect the suction nozzle (suction nozzle 120 including housing 110, upper housing 112 and lower housing 114, fig. 1-6) via the accessory hose (vacuum hose 34, fig. 1) to a fluid recovery system (cyclone separator 28, fig. 1; [0018]) located aboard said extraction cleaner;
[0018] The primary support 26 section receives a separating and collection assembly 24 for separating debris and other contaminants from the working airstream. The separating and collection assembly 24 is illustrated herein as comprising a cyclone module having a cyclone separator 28 for separating fluid and entrained debris from the working airstream and a collection chamber 22 for collecting the separated debris.
a fluid reservoir (supply tank 142, fig. 3, 4 and 6) in fluid communication with the fluid pathway (reservoir outlet 148, fig. 3, 4 and 6) and carried by the tool body (see fig. 2 - ann. 1),
a porous spray bar (mist distributor 172, fig. 3-6; [0029], [0032]) coupled to the tool body (see fig. 2 - ann. 1) adjacent the fluid reservoir (supply tank 142, fig. 3, 4 and 6) and surrounded (see fig. 2/3 - ann. 1) by the suction nozzle,
PNG
media_image2.png
540
960
media_image2.png
Greyscale
the porous spray bar (mist distributor 172, fig. 3-6; [0029], [0032]) being configured to direct the cleaning fluid from the fluid reservoir (supply tank 142, fig. 3, 4 and 6) onto said surface.
[0032] In one example, the piezoelectric transducer 174 can include an outer diameter of 20 mm and an inner diameter of 12 mm and can be mounted to the mist distributor 172, which can be in the form of a micro-perforated metal, such as a mesh, disk provided at the open area of the inner diameter of the annular transducer 174.
[0029] In one non-limiting example, the fluid delivery system 101 (FIG. 1) comprises a mist delivery system for generating a nebulized mist from the cleaning solution stored in the reservoir 144. The mist delivery system can include a mist generator 171 for generating the nebulized mist and a mist distributor 172 for delivering the nebulized mist to the surface to be cleaned.
Krebs fails to disclose that the fluid pathway (reservoir outlet 148, fig. 3, 4 and 6) is configured to connect via the accessory hose (vacuum hose 34, fig. 1) to “a fluid delivery system located aboard said extraction cleaner to receive a cleaning fluid from the fluid delivery system and direct the cleaning fluid” to the fluid reservoir (supply tank 142, fig. 3, 4 and 6).
Caro, which discloses a vacuum cleaner with a dispensing system for applying a treating agent stored on the vacuum cleaner to the surface to be cleaned, teaches:
[0013]:… However, the vacuum cleaner 10 differs from conventional "dry" vacuum cleaners in that the vacuum cleaner 10 is further provided with a liquid dispensing system 14 for applying a liquid treating agent carried on the vacuum cleaner 10 to the surface to be cleaned…
[0016] The liquid dispensing system 14 can include at least one container 34 for storing a supply of liquid treating agent 36 on the vacuum cleaner 10 and a dispenser 38 for dispensing the liquid treating agent 36 to the surface to be cleaned.
[0019] The liquid dispensing system 14 can further include a flow controller 52 for controlling the flow of liquid treating agent 36 through the liquid supply conduit 44 to the dispenser 38. The flow controller 52 shown herein includes an air pump 54 in fluid communication with the air inlet 46 of the container 34 via an air supply conduit 56. When activated, the air pump 54 pressurizes the container 34 and forces the liquid treating agent 36 out of the liquid outlet 42, through the liquid supply conduit 44, and out of the dispenser 38..
[0045] The liquid dispensing system of the second embodiment can be substantially similar to the liquid dispensing system 14 shown in FIG. 1, but further uses filtered working exhaust air exiting the post-motor filter assembly 120 to blow over the dispenser 38.
[0046] The post-motor filter housing 122 includes at least one outlet port 126 that is in fluid communication with the dispenser 38 via at least one air conduit 128. The air conduit 128 shown herein includes a flexible hose 130 extending from the filter outlet port 126 to an exhaust plenum 132 formed on the base 104. The exhaust plenum 132 includes a narrow inlet portion 134 which couples with the hose 130 and a wider outlet portion 136 which couples with the dispensing chamber 118.
Caro teaches connecting a fluid dispensing system through an air conduit (air hose) from a tank/reservoir located on the vacuum cleaner’s main body.
Krebs and Caro are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vacuum cleaners with a dispensing system for applying a cleaning agent.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Krebs to incorporate the connection within the air hose for fluid delivering system of Caro in order to provide a means for providing a cleaning supply readily as necessary, without needing frequent stops for refilling by having a larger reservoir located on the vacuum cleaner as opposed to only locally on the accessory tool.
Krebs fails to disclose of make obvious the spray bar being in the airflow pathway within the nozzle head. However, Cannan teaches such a configuration. See fig. 6-10:
PNG
media_image3.png
455
506
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Krebs and Cannan are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vacuum cleaners with a dispensing system for applying a cleaning agent.
Pursuant of MPEP 2144.04.VI.C, the particular placement of a spray bar within the airflow path as opposed to adjacent would be an obvious matter of design choice, given that arranging the spray bar within the airflow path would provide predictable results. The essential functionality of the spray/vacuum cleaner is maintained, as each element maintains the same function as it would have before modification.
In regards to claim 2, Krebs as modified discloses
the accessory tool of claim 1, wherein the tool body (see fig. 2 - ann. 1) includes a foot plate (bumper 130, fig. 2-5) forming a working surface (see fig. 3 - ann. 1), and wherein the suction nozzle (suction nozzle 120 including housing 110, upper housing 112 and lower housing 114, fig. 1-6) includes a continuous suction channel (suction nozzle passage, fig. 3, 5 and 6) that opens to the working surface of the foot plate (bumper 130, fig. 2-5).
PNG
media_image4.png
581
979
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 3, Krebs as modified discloses
the accessory tool of claim 2, further comprising: one or more agitators (elastomeric nubs, fig. 1-6; [0024]) connected to or formed integrally with the tool body (see fig. 2 - ann. 1) on the working surface thereof.
[0024] An agitator 128 can be mounted to a front edge 111a of the forward portion 111 of the suction nozzle 120. The agitator 128 can include a plurality of elastomeric nubs 129 for removing hair from the surface to be cleaned. In some aspects, the agitator 128 can comprise a plurality of bristles.
In regards to claim 4, Krebs as modified discloses
the accessory tool of claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose that the porous spray bar (mist distributor 172, fig. 3-6; [0029], [0032]) is constructed of “a sintered material.”
However, pursuant of MPEP 2113.1, 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. The mist distributor disclosed by Krebs anticipates the claimed spray bar structure, and is formed through a process resulting in a micro-porous metal, and as such meets the limitation that a product in the prior art made by a different process can anticipate a product-by-process claim.
Further, Caro discloses:
[0026] The dispenser 38 can be a porous body comprising a diffusion media that is configured to diffuse the liquid treating agent through the media at a relatively constant flow rate in order to evenly distribute the treating agent onto the surface to be cleaned. The flow rate of liquid dispensed by the dispenser 38 onto the surface to be cleaned can be relatively low in comparison to extraction cleaners and other liquid-delivering floor cleaners so that significantly less liquid is distributed to the surface during a cleaning operation.
[0027] One example of a suitable diffusion media for the dispenser 38 is a porous plastic material.
Caro claim 3: The vacuum cleaner from claim 2, wherein the polymer matrix comprises one of sintered polyethylene or sintered polypropylene.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to substitute sintered plastic for the metal spray bar, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. (MPEP 2144.07)
In regards to claim 5, Krebs as modified discloses
the accessory tool of claim 4, wherein the sintered material includes a sintered plastic material (see Caro [0026-0027] and claim 3).
In regards to claim 6, Krebs as modified discloses
the accessory tool of claim 1, wherein the porous spray bar (mist distributor 172, fig. 3-6; [0029], [0032]) is a planar bar or plate defining a plurality of orifices extending therethrough (see fig. 4 and [0029] description).
In regards to claim 7, Krebs as modified discloses
the accessory tool of claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose a flow rate of the cleaning fluid through the porous spray bar (mist distributor 172, fig. 3-6; [0029], [0032]) is “at least about 50 milliliters per minute (ml/min).”
Pursuant of MPEP 2144.05.II.A-B (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)), it has been found that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed int he prior art, the discovery of optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation is not inventive, given a lack of evidence indicating the claimed range is critical:
[0011] In a possible implementation, a flow rate of the cleaning fluid through the porous spray bar can be at least about 50 milliliters per minute (ml/min). The flow rate of the cleaning fluid through the porous spray bar can be less than about 300 ml/min in the same embodiment or other possible constructions.
[0017] Additionally, a fluid reservoir carried by the tool body is in fluid communication with the fluid pathway. As part of this representative construction, a porous spray bar constructed of a sintered plastic material, e.g., polypropylene or polyethylene, is connected to the tool body adjacent to the fluid reservoir and surrounded by the suction nozzle. A flow rate of cleaning fluid passing through pores of the porous spray bar is at least about 50 ml/min and less than about 300 ml/min in this non-limiting construction, with various sub-ranges being possible within this defined range as set forth in detail below.
As such, it would have been routine optimization to arrive at the claimed invention, as the Supreme Court held that "obvious to try" is a valid rationale for an obviousness finding, for example, when there is a "design need" or "market demand" and there are a "finite number" of solutions. In the case of the instant application, determining an optimum flow rate of fluid out of the vacuum cleaner would address oversaturating or undersaturation, directly impact cleaning effectiveness and operational functionality. As such, the optimization would address design needs and market demands.
In regards to claim 8, Krebs as modified discloses
the accessory tool of claim 7, but fails to explicitly disclose that the flow rate of the cleaning fluid through the porous spray bar (mist distributor 172, fig. 3-6; [0029], [0032]) is “less than about 300 ml/min.”
Pursuant of MPEP 2144.05.II.A-B (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)), it has been found that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed int he prior art, the discovery of optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation is not inventive, given a lack of evidence indicating the claimed range is critical (see at least paragraphs [0011], [0017] of applicant’s disclosure).
As such, it would have been routine optimization to arrive at the claimed invention, as the Supreme Court held that "obvious to try" is a valid rationale for an obviousness finding, for example, when there is a "design need" or "market demand" and there are a "finite number" of solutions. In the case of the instant application, determining an optimum flow rate of fluid out of the vacuum cleaner would address oversaturating or undersaturation, directly impact cleaning effectiveness and operational functionality. As such, the optimization would address design needs and market demands.
In regards to claim 12, Krebs as modified discloses
the accessory tool of claim 1, wherein the porous spray bar (mist distributor 172, fig. 3-6; [0029], [0032]) is removably connected (claim 1: a mist distributor operably coupled to the wick; fig. 4 provides exploded view; a skilled artisan would consider the components removeable for maintenance purposes) to the tool body (see fig. 2 - ann. 1).
In regards to claim 13, Krebs discloses
an extraction cleaner (vacuum cleaner, fig. 1; [0017]) comprising:
a housing (primary support section 26, fig. 1);
a fluid recovery system (cyclone separator 28, fig. 1; [0018]) carried by the body and operable for recovering the cleaning fluid and debris entrained therein;
an accessory hose (vacuum hose 34, fig. 1) connectable to said extraction cleaner; and
an accessory tool (accessory tool 100, fig. 1-6) connectable to the accessory hose, the accessory tool including:
a tool body (see fig. 2 - ann. 1) having a foot plate (bumper 130, fig. 2-5), the tool body defining a fluid pathway (reservoir outlet 148, fig. 3, 4 and 6), an airflow pathway (airflow pathway 140, fig. 3 and 6), and
a suction nozzle (suction nozzle 120 including housing 110, upper housing 112 and lower housing 114, fig. 1-6) in fluid communication with the airflow pathway, wherein the tool body (see fig. 2 - ann. 1);
a fluid reservoir (supply tank 142, fig. 3, 4 and 6) carried by the tool body (see fig. 2 - ann. 1) and in fluid communication with the fluid pathway (reservoir outlet 148, fig. 3, 4 and 6) such that the fluid reservoir (supply tank 142, fig. 3, 4 and 6) is supplied with the cleaning fluid; and
a porous spray bar (mist distributor 172, fig. 3-6; [0029], [0032]) connected to the tool body adjacent to the fluid reservoir and surrounded (see fig. 2/3 - ann. 1) by the suction nozzle (suction nozzle 120 including housing 110, upper housing 112 and lower housing 114, fig. 1-6), wherein the porous spray bar (mist distributor 172, fig. 3-6; [0029], [0032]) is configured to direct the cleaning fluid from the fluid reservoir onto a surface to be cleaned.
Krebs fails to disclose “a fluid delivery system carried by the housing and operable for dispensing a cleaning fluid” and that the suction nozzle in fluid communication with the airflow pathway also is configured to connect to the accessory hose (vacuum hose 34, fig. 1) to fluidly connect the fluid pathway (reservoir outlet 148, fig. 3, 4 and 6) “to the fluid delivery system” and to fluidly connect the airflow pathway (airflow pathway 140, fig. 3 and 6) to the fluid recovery system (cyclone separator 28, fig. 1; [0018]).
Caro, which discloses a vacuum cleaner with a dispensing system for applying a treating agent stored on the vacuum cleaner to the surface to be cleaned, teaches:
[0013]:… However, the vacuum cleaner 10 differs from conventional "dry" vacuum cleaners in that the vacuum cleaner 10 is further provided with a liquid dispensing system 14 for applying a liquid treating agent carried on the vacuum cleaner 10 to the surface to be cleaned…
[0016] The liquid dispensing system 14 can include at least one container 34 for storing a supply of liquid treating agent 36 on the vacuum cleaner 10 and a dispenser 38 for dispensing the liquid treating agent 36 to the surface to be cleaned.
[0019] The liquid dispensing system 14 can further include a flow controller 52 for controlling the flow of liquid treating agent 36 through the liquid supply conduit 44 to the dispenser 38. The flow controller 52 shown herein includes an air pump 54 in fluid communication with the air inlet 46 of the container 34 via an air supply conduit 56. When activated, the air pump 54 pressurizes the container 34 and forces the liquid treating agent 36 out of the liquid outlet 42, through the liquid supply conduit 44, and out of the dispenser 38..
[0045] The liquid dispensing system of the second embodiment can be substantially similar to the liquid dispensing system 14 shown in FIG. 1, but further uses filtered working exhaust air exiting the post-motor filter assembly 120 to blow over the dispenser 38.
[0046] The post-motor filter housing 122 includes at least one outlet port 126 that is in fluid communication with the dispenser 38 via at least one air conduit 128. The air conduit 128 shown herein includes a flexible hose 130 extending from the filter outlet port 126 to an exhaust plenum 132 formed on the base 104. The exhaust plenum 132 includes a narrow inlet portion 134 which couples with the hose 130 and a wider outlet portion 136 which couples with the dispensing chamber 118.
Caro teaches connecting a fluid dispensing system through an air conduit (air hose) from a tank/reservoir located on the vacuum cleaner’s main body.
Krebs and Caro are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vacuum cleaners with a dispensing system for applying a cleaning agent.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Krebs to incorporate the connection within the air hose for fluid delivering system of Caro in order to provide a means for providing a cleaning supply readily as necessary, without needing frequent stops for refilling by having a larger reservoir located on the vacuum cleaner as opposed to only locally on the accessory tool.
Krebs fails to disclose of make obvious the spray bar being in the airflow pathway within the nozzle head. However, Cannan teaches such a configuration. See fig. 6-10:
Pursuant of MPEP 2144.04.VI.C, the particular placement of a spray bar within the airflow path as opposed to adjacent would be an obvious matter of design choice, given that arranging the spray bar within the airflow path would provide predictable results. The essential functionality of the spray/vacuum cleaner is maintained, as each element maintains the same function as it would have before modification.
In regards to claim 14, Krebs as modified discloses
the extraction cleaner of claim 13, wherein said extraction cleaner (vacuum cleaner, fig. 1; [0017]) is an upright extraction cleaner ([0017]), and wherein the housing (primary support section 26, fig. 1) is connected to a set of wheels (see fig. 1 – ann. 1).
[0017] The vacuum cleaner 10 illustrated is an upright-type vacuum cleaner 10 with an upright assembly 12 pivotally mounted to a foot assembly or base 16.
PNG
media_image5.png
362
940
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 15, Krebs as modified discloses
the extraction cleaner of claim 13, wherein said extraction cleaner (vacuum cleaner, fig. 1; [0017]) is a portable extraction (a skilled artisan would recognize an upright vacuum cleaner as capable of portable, domestic use) cleaner having a handle (grip 32, fig. 1), and wherein the housing (primary support section 26, fig. 1) is connected to the handle (grip 32, fig. 1) such that a user carries the housing via the handle (grip 32, fig. 1).
In regards to claim 16, Krebs as modified discloses
the extraction cleaner of claim 13,
wherein the foot plate (bumper 130, fig. 2-5) includes a working surface (see fig. 3 - ann. 1), and wherein the suction nozzle (suction nozzle 120 including housing 110, upper housing 112 and lower housing 114, fig. 1-6) includes a continuous suction channel (suction nozzle passage, fig. 3, 5 and 6) that opens to the working surface of the foot plate (bumper 130, fig. 2-5).
In regards to claim 17, Krebs as modified discloses
the extraction cleaner of claim 16, further comprising: one or more agitators (elastomeric nubs, fig. 1-6; [0024]) connected to or formed integrally with the tool body (see fig. 2 - ann. 1) on the working surface (see fig. 3 - ann. 1).
In regards to claim 18, Krebs as modified discloses
the extraction cleaner of claim 13, but fails to disclose that the porous spray bar (mist distributor 172, fig. 3-6; [0029], [0032]) is constructed of “a sintered plastic material or a sintered metal material.”
Caro discloses:
[0026] The dispenser 38 can be a porous body comprising a diffusion media that is configured to diffuse the liquid treating agent through the media at a relatively constant flow rate in order to evenly distribute the treating agent onto the surface to be cleaned. The flow rate of liquid dispensed by the dispenser 38 onto the surface to be cleaned can be relatively low in comparison to extraction cleaners and other liquid-delivering floor cleaners so that significantly less liquid is distributed to the surface during a cleaning operation.
[0027] One example of a suitable diffusion media for the dispenser 38 is a porous plastic material.
Caro claim 3: The vacuum cleaner from claim 2, wherein the polymer matrix comprises one of sintered polyethylene or sintered polypropylene.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to substitute sintered plastic for the metal spray bar, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. (MPEP 2144.07)
In regards to claim 19, Krebs discloses
an accessory tool (accessory tool 100, fig. 1-6) for use with an extraction cleaner (vacuum cleaner, fig. 1; [0017]) and an accessory hose (vacuum hose 34, fig. 1) connectable to the extraction cleaner, the accessory tool comprising:
a tool body (see fig. 2 - ann. 1) defining a fluid pathway (reservoir outlet 148, fig. 3, 4 and 6), an airflow pathway (airflow pathway 140, fig. 3 and 6), and a suction nozzle (suction nozzle 120 including housing 110, upper housing 112 and lower housing 114, fig. 1-6) connected to the airflow pathway, wherein the tool body is configured to connect to said extraction cleaner (vacuum cleaner, fig. 1; [0017]) via said accessory hose (vacuum hose 34, fig. 1) and includes a foot plate (bumper 130, fig. 2-5) forming a working surface (see fig. 3 - ann. 1), the suction nozzle includes a continuous suction channel (suction nozzle passage, fig. 3, 5 and 6) that opens to the working surface of the foot plate (bumper 130, fig. 2-5), and the fluid pathway (reservoir outlet 148, fig. 3, 4 and 6),
and wherein the airflow pathway (airflow pathway 140, fig. 3 and 6) is configured to connect to a fluid recovery system (cyclone separator 28, fig. 1; [0018]) via said accessory hose (vacuum hose 34, fig. 1);
a fluid reservoir (supply tank 142, fig. 3, 4 and 6) carried by the tool body (see fig. 2 - ann. 1) and in fluid communication with the fluid pathway (reservoir outlet 148, fig. 3, 4 and 6); and a porous spray bar (mist distributor 172, fig. 3-6; [0029], [0032]), connected to the tool body adjacent to the fluid reservoir (supply tank 142, fig. 3, 4 and 6), and surrounded (see fig. 2/3 - ann. 1) by the suction nozzle (suction nozzle 120 including housing 110, upper housing 112 and lower housing 114, fig. 1-6),
Krebs fails to disclose being connected to “a fluid delivery system aboard said extraction cleaner via said accessory hose”.
Caro, which discloses a vacuum cleaner with a dispensing system for applying a treating agent stored on the vacuum cleaner to the surface to be cleaned, teaches:
[0013]:… However, the vacuum cleaner 10 differs from conventional "dry" vacuum cleaners in that the vacuum cleaner 10 is further provided with a liquid dispensing system 14 for applying a liquid treating agent carried on the vacuum cleaner 10 to the surface to be cleaned…
[0016] The liquid dispensing system 14 can include at least one container 34 for storing a supply of liquid treating agent 36 on the vacuum cleaner 10 and a dispenser 38 for dispensing the liquid treating agent 36 to the surface to be cleaned.
[0019] The liquid dispensing system 14 can further include a flow controller 52 for controlling the flow of liquid treating agent 36 through the liquid supply conduit 44 to the dispenser 38. The flow controller 52 shown herein includes an air pump 54 in fluid communication with the air inlet 46 of the container 34 via an air supply conduit 56. When activated, the air pump 54 pressurizes the container 34 and forces the liquid treating agent 36 out of the liquid outlet 42, through the liquid supply conduit 44, and out of the dispenser 38..
[0045] The liquid dispensing system of the second embodiment can be substantially similar to the liquid dispensing system 14 shown in FIG. 1, but further uses filtered working exhaust air exiting the post-motor filter assembly 120 to blow over the dispenser 38.
[0046] The post-motor filter housing 122 includes at least one outlet port 126 that is in fluid communication with the dispenser 38 via at least one air conduit 128. The air conduit 128 shown herein includes a flexible hose 130 extending from the filter outlet port 126 to an exhaust plenum 132 formed on the base 104. The exhaust plenum 132 includes a narrow inlet portion 134 which couples with the hose 130 and a wider outlet portion 136 which couples with the dispensing chamber 118.
Caro teaches connecting a fluid dispensing system through an air conduit (air hose) from a tank/reservoir located on the vacuum cleaner’s main body.
Krebs and Caro are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vacuum cleaners with a dispensing system for applying a cleaning agent.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Krebs to incorporate the connection within the air hose for fluid delivering system of Caro in order to provide a means for providing a cleaning supply readily as necessary, without needing frequent stops for refilling by having a larger reservoir located on the vacuum cleaner as opposed to only locally on the accessory tool.
Krebs fails to disclose that the spray bar is made of “sintered plastic.” Caro discloses [0026] The dispenser 38 can be a porous body comprising a diffusion media that is configured to diffuse the liquid treating agent through the media at a relatively constant flow rate in order to evenly distribute the treating agent onto the surface to be cleaned. The flow rate of liquid dispensed by the dispenser 38 onto the surface to be cleaned can be relatively low in comparison to extraction cleaners and other liquid-delivering floor cleaners so that significantly less liquid is distributed to the surface during a cleaning operation.
[0027] One example of a suitable diffusion media for the dispenser 38 is a porous plastic material.
Caro claim 3: The vacuum cleaner from claim 2, wherein the polymer matrix comprises one of sintered polyethylene or sintered polypropylene.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to substitute sintered plastic for the metal spray bar, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. (MPEP 2144.07)
Krebs fails to disclose of make obvious the spray bar being in the airflow pathway within the nozzle head. However, Cannan teaches such a configuration. See fig. 6-10:
Krebs and Cannan are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vacuum cleaners with a dispensing system for applying a cleaning agent.
Pursuant of MPEP 2144.04.VI.C, the particular placement of a spray bar within the airflow path as opposed to adjacent would be an obvious matter of design choice, given that arranging the spray bar within the airflow path would provide predictable results. The essential functionality of the spray/vacuum cleaner is maintained, as each element maintains the same function as it would have before modification.
Krebs fails to explicitly disclose a flow rate of cleaning fluid through the porous spray bar (mist distributor 172, fig. 3-6; [0029], [0032]) is “at least about 50 milliliters per minute (ml/min) and less than about 300 ml/min.”
Pursuant of MPEP 2144.05.II.A-B (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)), it has been found that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed int he prior art, the discovery of optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation is not inventive, given a lack of evidence indicating the claimed range is critical (see at least paragraphs [0011], [0017] of applicant’s disclosure).
As such, it would have been routine optimization to arrive at the claimed invention, as the Supreme Court held that "obvious to try" is a valid rationale for an obviousness finding, for example, when there is a "design need" or "market demand" and there are a "finite number" of solutions. In the case of the instant application, determining an optimum flow rate of fluid out of the vacuum cleaner would address oversaturating or undersaturation, directly impact cleaning effectiveness and operational functionality. As such, the optimization would address design needs and market demands.
Claim(s) 9-12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krebs (US PG Pub No. 20180333736) and Caro et al. (US PG Pub No. 20150020344), in further view of Pears (US Patent No. 7779860).
In regards to claim 9, Krebs discloses
the accessory tool of claim 1, but fails to disclose that the tool body (see fig. 2 - ann. 1) includes “at least one suction relief device configured to selectively reduce suction” at the suction nozzle (suction nozzle 120 including housing 110, upper housing 112 and lower housing 114, fig. 1-6).
Pears, which discloses an airflow control mechanism comprising a conduit for air having an inlet located at a first end thereof and an outlet located at a second end thereof, teaches:
FIG. 2A schematically shows a side view of part of a vacuum cleaner wand comprising a bleed valve according to an embodiment of the present invention
PNG
media_image6.png
351
460
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Col. 4 line 33 – col. 5 line 11:
… At the same time, window 40 exposes either more or fewer of the plurality of openings 114, one by one. As shown in FIG. 2C, rotatable collar 120 is further provided with a plurality of channels 28 formed on the underside thereof…. Thus during operation of the vacuum cleaner, air drawn into openings 114 in the direction indicated in FIG. 2C by the arrows labelled D and D' is directed into openings 114 by corresponding channels 28.…
All of FIGS. 2A, 2B and 2C show the bleed valve in the half-open position, wherein the pointer 24 is centrally located between the minimum and maximum positions represented by indicia 26, and only half of the total number of openings 114 are exposed by window 40. Accordingly, FIGS. 4A and 4B respectively show the appearance of the underside of collar 120 when pointer 24 is in the minimum and maximum positions thereof. As may be seen in FIG. 4A, when pointer 24 is in the minimum position represented by indicia 26, all of the openings 114 equal in number to channels 28 are exposed by window 40. Since all of the openings 114 are exposed, the maximum volume of clean air enters through the bleed valve and the minimum volume of dirty air enters through the dirty air inlet to the vacuum cleaner wand; hence this represents the minimum position for suction power at the dirty air inlet. On the other hand, as may be seen in FIG. 4B, when pointer 24 is in the maximum position represented by indicia 26, none of the openings 114 are exposed by window 40. In this case, since none of the openings are exposed, no clean air can enter through the bleed valve and all the air enters the wand through the dirty air inlet; hence this represents the maximum position for suction power at the dirty air inlet. A user is therefore able to select, in a stepwise fashion corresponding to how many of openings 114 are exposed by window 40, how much to open the bleed valve between the fully open position shown in FIG. 4A and the fully closed position shown in FIG. 4B.
Pears and Krebs are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vacuum cleaning devices, and further Pears is concerned with the problem of controlling airflow.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Krebs by adding the air relief assembly (openings 114, channels 28, window 40, and collar 120) of Pears to the attachment/handle portion of the tool accessory wand in order to selectively reduce section, providing “highly predictable and repeatable setting for the airflow control mechanism (abstract)” that is “cheap and simple to manufacture and reliable in operation like a conventional bleed valve, but which gives a high degree of precise control to a user like a motor power adjustment mechanism (invention summary).”
In regards to claim 10, Krebs as modified discloses
the accessory tool of claim 9, wherein the at least one suction relief device (as taught by Pears) includes a plurality of vent channels (channels 28) intersecting the suction nozzle (suction nozzle 120 including housing 110, upper housing 112 and lower housing 114, fig. 1-6) such that the suction nozzle is in fluid communication with an outer perimeter surface of said accessory tool (see Pears Col. 4 line 33 – col. 5 line 11).
In regards to claim 11, Krebs as modified discloses
the accessory tool of claim 9, wherein the at least one suction relief device (as taught by Pears) includes a plurality of vent holes (channels 28) formed in said accessory tool and a moveable member (collar 120) configured to selectively cover and uncover one or more of the plurality of vent holes (Col. 4 line 33 – col. 5 line 11).
In regards to claim 20, Kreb as modified discloses
the accessory tool of claim 19, but fails to disclose that the tool body (see fig. 2 - ann. 1) includes “at least one suction relief device configured to selectively reduce suction” at the suction nozzle (suction nozzle 120 including housing 110, upper housing 112 and lower housing 114, fig. 1-6).
Pears, which discloses an airflow control mechanism comprising a conduit for air having an inlet located at a first end thereof and an outlet located at a second end thereof, teaches:
FIG. 2A schematically shows a side view of part of a vacuum cleaner wand comprising a bleed valve according to an embodiment of the present invention (col. 4 line 33 – col. 5 line 11)
Pears and Krebs are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vacuum cleaning devices, and further Pears is concerned with the problem of controlling airflow.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Krebs by adding the air relief assembly (openings 114, channels 28, window 40, and collar 120) of Pears to the attachment/handle portion of the tool accessory wand in order to selectively reduce section, providing “highly predictable and repeatable setting for the airflow control mechanism (abstract)” that is “cheap and simple to manufacture and reliable in operation like a conventional bleed valve, but which gives a high degree of precise control to a user like a motor power adjustment mechanism (invention summary).”
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 JASON KHALIL HAWKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-5446. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 8-5PM.
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 at (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.
/JASON KHALIL HAWKINS/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723