DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-17 are presented for examination. Claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 11 and 13 are amended. Claims 16-17 are new. This office action is response to the submission on 3/2/2026.
Response to Arguments
With respect to 35 U.S.C. §112(b) Rejections:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 3, 8 and 13, see page 8 of applicant response filed 3/2/2026, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejections of claims 3, 8 and 13 have been withdrawn.
Examiner notes that that the newly added claim 17 has an antecedent basis issue as described below in 35 U.S.C. §112 Rejection section.
With respect to 35 U.S.C. §103 Rejections:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 6, and 11, see pages 8-9 of applicant response filed 3/2/2026, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 recites the limitation “wherein first location of the chassis” in line 1. Examiner believes this should read “wherein the first location of the chassis…” (Typo).
Claim 17 recites the limitation “and wherein the stored instructions further comprising instructions…” in lines 2-3. Examiner believes this should read “and wherein the stored instructions further comprise instructions…” (Typo).
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 17 recites the limitation "the third pressure sensor and the fourth pressure sensor" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, examiner interprets line 1 of claim 17 as “The autonomous vacuum system of claim [[1]] 16, wherein…”
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.
Claims 1-2, 6-7, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hensel et al. (US20130312792A1), in view of Gilbert et al. (US20120311813A1), further in view of Delmas et al. (US5722109A).
Claim 1:
Hensel teaches “An (Hensel teaches a vacuum with a suction hose 18 i.e. a cleaning head and a dirt collection container 12 i.e. a waste container in Hensel [0054] "Schematically represented in the drawings is a vacuum cleaner 10, with a dirt collection container 12, on which a suction head 14 is mounted. The dirt collection container 12 comprises a suction inlet 16, to which a suction hose 18 can be connected in the usual manner. The suction head 14 seals off the dirt collection container 12 on the upper side and forms a suction outlet 20, on which a filter 22 is held. Connected to the filter 22 is a suction extraction line 24, via which the dirt collection container 12 is in flow connection with a suction unit 26. The suction unit 26 comprises an electric motor 27 and a fan 28 rotationally driven by the electric motor 27."; Hensel Fig. 1 teaches a chassis with the dirt collection container 12.
PNG
media_image1.png
527
521
media_image1.png
Greyscale
),
“a channel between the cleaning head and the chassis for conducting air, the channel comprising: a first pressure sensor measuring pressure at a first location of the channel; and a second pressure sensor measuring pressure at a second location of the channel;” (Hensel teaches two pressure sensors 84 and 86 in Hensel [0064] "Alternatively or additionally, it may be provided that a first pressure sensor 84 is arranged upstream of the filter 22 and a second pressure sensor 86 is arranged downstream of the filter 22, these being connected to the control device 62 and each providing a pressure-dependent control signal."; Hensel Fig. 1 [As shown above in this claim] teaches a channel that contains two pressure sensors 84 and 86 between the suction hose 18 and chassis.),
“and a controller device including a memory comprising stored instructions configured to detect and respond to an obstruction within the channel,” (Hensel teaches that the control device 62 can automatically trigger a filter cleaning based on a pressure difference detected by the two sensors i.e. an obstruction would cause the control device to respond in Hensel [0064] "Alternatively or additionally, it may be provided that a first pressure sensor 84 is arranged upstream of the filter 22 and a second pressure sensor 86 is arranged downstream of the filter 22, these being connected to the control device 62 and each providing a pressure-dependent control signal. The pressure difference arising at the filter 22 can be determined by means of the two pressure sensors 84 and 86. The more solid particles are deposited on the filter 22, the greater is the flow resistance of the filter 22 and the greater is also the resulting pressure difference. When the pressure difference reaches a prescribable value, the control device 62 can automatically trigger filter cleaning."),
“the stored instructions comprising instructions that when executed cause the controller device to:… determine, using the computed pressure differential, that the channel contains an obstruction;” (Hensel teaches that the control device 62 can automatically trigger a filter cleaning based on a pressure difference detected by the two sensors i.e. an obstruction is detected when the pressure difference reaches the prescribable value in Hensel [0064] "Alternatively or additionally, it may be provided that a first pressure sensor 84 is arranged upstream of the filter 22 and a second pressure sensor 86 is arranged downstream of the filter 22, these being connected to the control device 62 and each providing a pressure-dependent control signal. The pressure difference arising at the filter 22 can be determined by means of the two pressure sensors 84 and 86. The more solid particles are deposited on the filter 22, the greater is the flow resistance of the filter 22 and the greater is also the resulting pressure difference. When the pressure difference reaches a prescribable value, the control device 62 can automatically trigger filter cleaning."),
“and execute a remedial action in response to the determining.” (Hensel teaches that the control device 62 automatically triggering a filter cleaning based on a pressure difference detected by the two sensors i.e. the filter cleaning is the remedial action in Hensel [0064] "Alternatively or additionally, it may be provided that a first pressure sensor 84 is arranged upstream of the filter 22 and a second pressure sensor 86 is arranged downstream of the filter 22, these being connected to the control device 62 and each providing a pressure-dependent control signal. The pressure difference arising at the filter 22 can be determined by means of the two pressure sensors 84 and 86. The more solid particles are deposited on the filter 22, the greater is the flow resistance of the filter 22 and the greater is also the resulting pressure difference. When the pressure difference reaches a prescribable value, the control device 62 can automatically trigger filter cleaning.").
Hensel does not appear to explicitly teach “An autonomous vacuum system” However, Gilbert does teach this claim limitation (Gilbert teaches an autonomous mobile robot vacuum with a cleaning head in Gilbert [0040] "In another implementation, an autonomous mobile robot includes a chassis having a drive system mounted therein in communication with a control system. The chassis has a vacuum airway disposed therethrough for delivering debris from a cleaning head assembly mounted to the chassis to a debris collection bin mounted to the chassis. The vacuum airway extends between the cleaning assembly and debris collection bin and is in fluid communication with an impeller member disposed within the debris collection bin. A cleaning head module connected to the chassis has, rotatably engaged therewith, a tubular front roller and a tubular rear roller positioned adjacent one another and beneath an inlet to the vacuum airway."; Gilbert Fig. 1 displays the robotic vacuum, Gilbert Fig. 3 shows a detailed view of the cleaning head 300.
PNG
media_image2.png
351
487
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
810
354
media_image3.png
Greyscale
).
Hensel and Gilbert are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of vacuum cleaners. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having teachings of Hensel and Gilbert before him/her, to modify the teachings of Method for cleaning a filter of a vacuum cleaner and vacuum cleaner for performing the method of Hensel to include the autonomous vacuum of Gilbert because adding the Robotic Vacuum of Gilbert would allow for the vacuum to automatically adjust to the type of floor as described in Gilbert [0016] “In accordance with various embodiments of the present teachings, the frame or cage of the cleaning head surrounds the cleaning head and facilitates attachment of the cleaning head to the robotic vacuum chassis. The four-bar linkage discuss hereinabove facilitates movement (i.e., “floating”) of the cleaning head within its frame. When a robotic vacuum having a cleaning head in accordance with the present teachings is operating, it is preferable that a bottom surface of the cleaning head remain substantially parallel to the floor, and in some embodiments, it is preferable that the front roller be positioned slightly higher than the rear roller during operation to prevent the front roller from digging into the cleaning surface, especially during transition from a firm surface (e.g., hardwood or tile) to a compressible surface (e.g., carpet). The cleaning head moves vertically during operation, for example to accommodate floor irregularities like thresholds, vents, or moving from a vinyl floor to carpet. The illustrated four-bar linkage provides a simple mechanism to support the cleaning head within the frame and allow the cleaning head to move relative to the frame so that the cleaning head can adjust vertically during operation of the robotic vacuum without pivoting in a manner that will cause the cleaning head to lose its parallel position with respect to the floor.”
Neither Hensel or Gilbert appear to explicitly teach “the stored instructions comprising instructions that when executed cause the controller device to: determine, for each of the first pressure sensor and the second pressure sensor, respective pressure reading averages over a predefined time interval; compute, using the respective pressure reading averages, a pressure differential between the first pressure sensor and the second pressure sensor;” (Delmas teaches a preprocessing block 30 which receives pressure signals from two pressure detectors and calculates a difference between the average values of the pressures obtained at each measuring point in Delmas [Column 10 lines 37-57] "a preprocessing block 30 which receives at its input the output signals 16 and 26 of the first and second pressure detectors, and which carries out a treatment called PREPROCESSING consisting in a calculation of:the average pressure value PM of the oscillations of the output signal 16 of the first pressure detector 14 relative to the pressure obtaining at the input 11 of the dust chamber 12;the amplitude difference ΔP between maxima and minima of the oscillations of the output signal 16 of the pressure detector 14 relative to that same pressure;the difference between the average values (PM'-PM) of the pressures obtaining at the input 11 at measuring point 15 and at the output 23a or 23b of the dust chamber at measuring point 25. This calculation is carried out during time periods or "time windows" T of a sufficient length, for example of 2 seconds, during which an average user carries out at least one change in direction of the nozzle between a forward and a return stroke on the floor to be cleaned during a normal cleaning operation while the vacuum cleaner is switched on."; Delmas teaches the average pressure difference between the outlet and inlet of the dust chamber may be outputted from the preprocessing block 30 in Delmas [Column 11 lines 13-35] "The outputs 31, 32, 33 of the preprocessing block 30 are connected to a neuron network or classifier block 40 which comprises:1 to 3 inputs, 2 outputs for the signals to be calculated. The three inputs of the neuron network or classifier block 40 are formed by the three output signals calculated by the preprocessing block 30:a signal 31 representing the maximum value of the amplitude difference ΔP between the maxima and minima of the pressure oscillations of the signal provided by the floor type detector 14. To eliminate the effect of noise on the maximum and minimum values, a smoothing operation may be carried out on the signal, for example, through calculation of the average value over the 0.3-s windows; a signal 32 representing the average pressure amplitude value PM, supplied by the floor type detector 14; a signal 33 representing the difference in average pressure amplitude (PM'-PM) between the outlet and the inlet of the dust chamber. The coefficients of the neuron network relative to this input may be low.").
Hensel, Gilbert, and Delmas are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of vacuum cleaners. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having teachings of Hensel, Gilbert, and Delmas before him/her, to modify the teachings of Method for cleaning a filter of a vacuum cleaner and vacuum cleaner for performing the method of Hensel modified to include the Robotic Vacuum of Gilbert to include the average pressure difference calculation of Delmas because including the Vacuum cleaner with floor type detection means of Delmas would eliminate the effect of noise as described in Delmas [Column 11 lines 13-35] "The outputs 31, 32, 33 of the preprocessing block 30 are connected to a neuron network or classifier block 40 which comprises: 1 to 3 inputs, 2 outputs for the signals to be calculated. The three inputs of the neuron network or classifier block 40 are formed by the three output signals calculated by the preprocessing block 30: a signal 31 representing the maximum value of the amplitude difference ΔP between the maxima and minima of the pressure oscillations of the signal provided by the floor type detector 14. To eliminate the effect of noise on the maximum and minimum values, a smoothing operation may be carried out on the signal, for example, through calculation of the average value over the 0.3-s windows; a signal 32 representing the average pressure amplitude value PM, supplied by the floor type detector 14; a signal 33 representing the difference in average pressure amplitude (PM'-PM) between the outlet and the inlet of the dust chamber. The coefficients of the neuron network relative to this input may be low."
Claim 2:
Hensel in view of Gilbert, further in view of Delmas teaches “The autonomous vacuum system of claim 1, wherein the instructions to execute the remedial action comprise instructions to execute a purge procedure.” (Hensel teaches that the control device 62 automatically triggering a filter cleaning based on a pressure difference detected by the two sensors i.e. the filter cleaning is a purge procedure in Hensel [0064] "Alternatively or additionally, it may be provided that a first pressure sensor 84 is arranged upstream of the filter 22 and a second pressure sensor 86 is arranged downstream of the filter 22, these being connected to the control device 62 and each providing a pressure-dependent control signal. The pressure difference arising at the filter 22 can be determined by means of the two pressure sensors 84 and 86. The more solid particles are deposited on the filter 22, the greater is the flow resistance of the filter 22 and the greater is also the resulting pressure difference. When the pressure difference reaches a prescribable value, the control device 62 can automatically trigger filter cleaning.").
Claim 6:
Hensel teaches “A method implemented by an (Hensel teaches that the control device 62 can automatically trigger a filter cleaning based on a pressure difference detected by the two sensors i.e. an obstruction is detected when the pressure difference reaches the prescribable value in Hensel [0064] "Alternatively or additionally, it may be provided that a first pressure sensor 84 is arranged upstream of the filter 22 and a second pressure sensor 86 is arranged downstream of the filter 22, these being connected to the control device 62 and each providing a pressure-dependent control signal. The pressure difference arising at the filter 22 can be determined by means of the two pressure sensors 84 and 86. The more solid particles are deposited on the filter 22, the greater is the flow resistance of the filter 22 and the greater is also the resulting pressure difference. When the pressure difference reaches a prescribable value, the control device 62 can automatically trigger filter cleaning."; Hensel teaches two pressure sensors 84 and 86 in Hensel [0064] "Alternatively or additionally, it may be provided that a first pressure sensor 84 is arranged upstream of the filter 22 and a second pressure sensor 86 is arranged downstream of the filter 22, these being connected to the control device 62 and each providing a pressure-dependent control signal."; Hensel Fig. 1 [As shown above in claim 1] teaches a channel that contains two pressure sensors 84 and 86 between the suction hose 18 and chassis in two different locations in the channel.”),
“determining, using the computed pressure differential, that the channel contains an obstruction;” (Hensel teaches that the control device 62 can automatically trigger a filter cleaning based on a pressure difference detected by the two sensors i.e. an obstruction is detected when the pressure difference reaches the prescribable value in Hensel [0064] "Alternatively or additionally, it may be provided that a first pressure sensor 84 is arranged upstream of the filter 22 and a second pressure sensor 86 is arranged downstream of the filter 22, these being connected to the control device 62 and each providing a pressure-dependent control signal. The pressure difference arising at the filter 22 can be determined by means of the two pressure sensors 84 and 86. The more solid particles are deposited on the filter 22, the greater is the flow resistance of the filter 22 and the greater is also the resulting pressure difference. When the pressure difference reaches a prescribable value, the control device 62 can automatically trigger filter cleaning."), and
“and executing a remedial action in response to the determining.” (Hensel teaches that the control device 62 automatically triggering a filter cleaning based on a pressure difference detected by the two sensors i.e. the filter cleaning is the remedial action in Hensel [0064] "Alternatively or additionally, it may be provided that a first pressure sensor 84 is arranged upstream of the filter 22 and a second pressure sensor 86 is arranged downstream of the filter 22, these being connected to the control device 62 and each providing a pressure-dependent control signal. The pressure difference arising at the filter 22 can be determined by means of the two pressure sensors 84 and 86. The more solid particles are deposited on the filter 22, the greater is the flow resistance of the filter 22 and the greater is also the resulting pressure difference. When the pressure difference reaches a prescribable value, the control device 62 can automatically trigger filter cleaning.").
Hensel does not appear to explicitly teach “An autonomous vacuum system” However, Gilbert does teach this claim limitation (Gilbert teaches an autonomous mobile robot vacuum with a cleaning head in Gilbert [0040] "In another implementation, an autonomous mobile robot includes a chassis having a drive system mounted therein in communication with a control system. The chassis has a vacuum airway disposed therethrough for delivering debris from a cleaning head assembly mounted to the chassis to a debris collection bin mounted to the chassis. The vacuum airway extends between the cleaning assembly and debris collection bin and is in fluid communication with an impeller member disposed within the debris collection bin. A cleaning head module connected to the chassis has, rotatably engaged therewith, a tubular front roller and a tubular rear roller positioned adjacent one another and beneath an inlet to the vacuum airway."; Gilbert Fig. 1 [As shown above in claim 1] displays the robotic vacuum, Gilbert Fig. 3 [As shown above in claim 1] shows a detailed view of the cleaning head 300.).
Hensel and Gilbert are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of vacuum cleaners. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having teachings of Hensel and Gilbert before him/her, to modify the teachings of Method for cleaning a filter of a vacuum cleaner and vacuum cleaner for performing the method of Hensel to include the autonomous vacuum of Gilbert because adding the Robotic Vacuum of Gilbert would allow for the vacuum to automatically adjust to the type of floor as described in Gilbert [0016] “In accordance with various embodiments of the present teachings, the frame or cage of the cleaning head surrounds the cleaning head and facilitates attachment of the cleaning head to the robotic vacuum chassis. The four-bar linkage discuss hereinabove facilitates movement (i.e., “floating”) of the cleaning head within its frame. When a robotic vacuum having a cleaning head in accordance with the present teachings is operating, it is preferable that a bottom surface of the cleaning head remain substantially parallel to the floor, and in some embodiments, it is preferable that the front roller be positioned slightly higher than the rear roller during operation to prevent the front roller from digging into the cleaning surface, especially during transition from a firm surface (e.g., hardwood or tile) to a compressible surface (e.g., carpet). The cleaning head moves vertically during operation, for example to accommodate floor irregularities like thresholds, vents, or moving from a vinyl floor to carpet. The illustrated four-bar linkage provides a simple mechanism to support the cleaning head within the frame and allow the cleaning head to move relative to the frame so that the cleaning head can adjust vertically during operation of the robotic vacuum without pivoting in a manner that will cause the cleaning head to lose its parallel position with respect to the floor.”
Neither Hensel or Gilbert appear to explicitly teach “determining, for each of a first pressure sensor and a second pressure sensor located within a channel between a cleaning head of the autonomous vacuum system and a chassis of the autonomous vacuum system, respective pressure reading averages over a predefined time interval,” (Delmas teaches a preprocessing block 30 which receives pressure signals from two pressure detectors and calculates a difference between the average values of the pressures obtained at each measuring point in Delmas [Column 10 lines 37-57] "a preprocessing block 30 which receives at its input the output signals 16 and 26 of the first and second pressure detectors, and which carries out a treatment called PREPROCESSING consisting in a calculation of:the average pressure value PM of the oscillations of the output signal 16 of the first pressure detector 14 relative to the pressure obtaining at the input 11 of the dust chamber 12;the amplitude difference ΔP between maxima and minima of the oscillations of the output signal 16 of the pressure detector 14 relative to that same pressure;the difference between the average values (PM'-PM) of the pressures obtaining at the input 11 at measuring point 15 and at the output 23a or 23b of the dust chamber at measuring point 25. This calculation is carried out during time periods or "time windows" T of a sufficient length, for example of 2 seconds, during which an average user carries out at least one change in direction of the nozzle between a forward and a return stroke on the floor to be cleaned during a normal cleaning operation while the vacuum cleaner is switched on."; Delmas teaches the average pressure difference between the outlet and inlet of the dust chamber may be outputted from the preprocessing block 30 in Delmas [Column 11 lines 13-35] "The outputs 31, 32, 33 of the preprocessing block 30 are connected to a neuron network or classifier block 40 which comprises:1 to 3 inputs, 2 outputs for the signals to be calculated. The three inputs of the neuron network or classifier block 40 are formed by the three output signals calculated by the preprocessing block 30:a signal 31 representing the maximum value of the amplitude difference ΔP between the maxima and minima of the pressure oscillations of the signal provided by the floor type detector 14. To eliminate the effect of noise on the maximum and minimum values, a smoothing operation may be carried out on the signal, for example, through calculation of the average value over the 0.3-s windows; a signal 32 representing the average pressure amplitude value PM, supplied by the floor type detector 14; a signal 33 representing the difference in average pressure amplitude (PM'-PM) between the outlet and the inlet of the dust chamber. The coefficients of the neuron network relative to this input may be low."; Delmas Figs. 1A and 1B teach the pressure sensors 14 and 24 being within a channel between a cleaning head of the vacuum and the chassis of the vacuum.
[AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image4.png
743
552
media_image4.png
Greyscale
).
Hensel, Gilbert, and Delmas are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of vacuum cleaners. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having teachings of Hensel, Gilbert, and Delmas before him/her, to modify the teachings of Method for cleaning a filter of a vacuum cleaner and vacuum cleaner for performing the method of Hensel modified to include the Robotic Vacuum of Gilbert to include the average pressure difference calculation of Delmas because including the Vacuum cleaner with floor type detection means of Delmas would eliminate the effect of noise as described in Delmas [Column 11 lines 13-35] "The outputs 31, 32, 33 of the preprocessing block 30 are connected to a neuron network or classifier block 40 which comprises: 1 to 3 inputs, 2 outputs for the signals to be calculated. The three inputs of the neuron network or classifier block 40 are formed by the three output signals calculated by the preprocessing block 30: a signal 31 representing the maximum value of the amplitude difference ΔP between the maxima and minima of the pressure oscillations of the signal provided by the floor type detector 14. To eliminate the effect of noise on the maximum and minimum values, a smoothing operation may be carried out on the signal, for example, through calculation of the average value over the 0.3-s windows; a signal 32 representing the average pressure amplitude value PM, supplied by the floor type detector 14; a signal 33 representing the difference in average pressure amplitude (PM'-PM) between the outlet and the inlet of the dust chamber. The coefficients of the neuron network relative to this input may be low."
Claim 7:
Claim 7 is substantially the same as claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 11:
Hensel teaches “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that when executed by a computer processor of an pressure sensor measures pressure at a second location of the channel; compute, using the respective pressure reading averages, a pressure differential between the first pressure sensor and the second pressure sensor;” (Hensel teaches that a control device 62 i.e. the control device has instructions stored on a computer-readable storage medium can automatically trigger a filter cleaning based on a pressure difference detected by the two sensors i.e. an obstruction is detected when the pressure difference reaches the prescribable value in Hensel [0064] "Alternatively or additionally, it may be provided that a first pressure sensor 84 is arranged upstream of the filter 22 and a second pressure sensor 86 is arranged downstream of the filter 22, these being connected to the control device 62 and each providing a pressure-dependent control signal. The pressure difference arising at the filter 22 can be determined by means of the two pressure sensors 84 and 86. The more solid particles are deposited on the filter 22, the greater is the flow resistance of the filter 22 and the greater is also the resulting pressure difference. When the pressure difference reaches a prescribable value, the control device 62 can automatically trigger filter cleaning."; Hensel teaches two pressure sensors 84 and 86 in Hensel [0064] "Alternatively or additionally, it may be provided that a first pressure sensor 84 is arranged upstream of the filter 22 and a second pressure sensor 86 is arranged downstream of the filter 22, these being connected to the control device 62 and each providing a pressure-dependent control signal."; Hensel Fig. 1 [As shown above in claim 1] teaches a channel that contains two pressure sensors 84 and 86 between the suction hose 18 and chassis in two different locations in the channel.),
“determine, using the computed pressure differential, that the channel contains an obstruction;” (Hensel teaches that the control device 62 can automatically trigger a filter cleaning based on a pressure difference detected by the two sensors i.e. an obstruction is detected when the pressure difference reaches the prescribable value in Hensel [0064] "Alternatively or additionally, it may be provided that a first pressure sensor 84 is arranged upstream of the filter 22 and a second pressure sensor 86 is arranged downstream of the filter 22, these being connected to the control device 62 and each providing a pressure-dependent control signal. The pressure difference arising at the filter 22 can be determined by means of the two pressure sensors 84 and 86. The more solid particles are deposited on the filter 22, the greater is the flow resistance of the filter 22 and the greater is also the resulting pressure difference. When the pressure difference reaches a prescribable value, the control device 62 can automatically trigger filter cleaning."), and
“and execute a remedial action in response to the determining.” (Hensel teaches that the control device 62 automatically triggering a filter cleaning based on a pressure difference detected by the two sensors i.e. the filter cleaning is the remedial action in Hensel [0064] "Alternatively or additionally, it may be provided that a first pressure sensor 84 is arranged upstream of the filter 22 and a second pressure sensor 86 is arranged downstream of the filter 22, these being connected to the control device 62 and each providing a pressure-dependent control signal. The pressure difference arising at the filter 22 can be determined by means of the two pressure sensors 84 and 86. The more solid particles are deposited on the filter 22, the greater is the flow resistance of the filter 22 and the greater is also the resulting pressure difference. When the pressure difference reaches a prescribable value, the control device 62 can automatically trigger filter cleaning.").
Hensel does not appear to explicitly teach “An autonomous vacuum system” However, Gilbert does teach this claim limitation (Gilbert teaches an autonomous mobile robot vacuum with a cleaning head in Gilbert [0040] "In another implementation, an autonomous mobile robot includes a chassis having a drive system mounted therein in communication with a control system. The chassis has a vacuum airway disposed therethrough for delivering debris from a cleaning head assembly mounted to the chassis to a debris collection bin mounted to the chassis. The vacuum airway extends between the cleaning assembly and debris collection bin and is in fluid communication with an impeller member disposed within the debris collection bin. A cleaning head module connected to the chassis has, rotatably engaged therewith, a tubular front roller and a tubular rear roller positioned adjacent one another and beneath an inlet to the vacuum airway."; Gilbert Fig. 1 [As shown above in claim 1] displays the robotic vacuum, Gilbert Fig. 3 [As shown above in claim 1] shows a detailed view of the cleaning head 300.).
Hensel and Gilbert are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of vacuum cleaners. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having teachings of Hensel and Gilbert before him/her, to modify the teachings of Method for cleaning a filter of a vacuum cleaner and vacuum cleaner for performing the method of Hensel to include the autonomous vacuum of Gilbert because adding the Robotic Vacuum of Gilbert would allow for the vacuum to automatically adjust to the type of floor as described in Gilbert [0016] “In accordance with various embodiments of the present teachings, the frame or cage of the cleaning head surrounds the cleaning head and facilitates attachment of the cleaning head to the robotic vacuum chassis. The four-bar linkage discuss hereinabove facilitates movement (i.e., “floating”) of the cleaning head within its frame. When a robotic vacuum having a cleaning head in accordance with the present teachings is operating, it is preferable that a bottom surface of the cleaning head remain substantially parallel to the floor, and in some embodiments, it is preferable that the front roller be positioned slightly higher than the rear roller during operation to prevent the front roller from digging into the cleaning surface, especially during transition from a firm surface (e.g., hardwood or tile) to a compressible surface (e.g., carpet). The cleaning head moves vertically during operation, for example to accommodate floor irregularities like thresholds, vents, or moving from a vinyl floor to carpet. The illustrated four-bar linkage provides a simple mechanism to support the cleaning head within the frame and allow the cleaning head to move relative to the frame so that the cleaning head can adjust vertically during operation of the robotic vacuum without pivoting in a manner that will cause the cleaning head to lose its parallel position with respect to the floor.”
Neither Hensel or Gilbert appear to explicitly teach “determine, for each of a first pressure sensor and a second pressure sensor located within a channel between a cleaning head of the autonomous vacuum system and a chassis of the autonomous vacuum system, respective pressure reading averages over a predefined time interval,” (Delmas teaches a preprocessing block 30 which receives pressure signals from two pressure detectors and calculates a difference between the average values of the pressures obtained at each measuring point in Delmas [Column 10 lines 37-57] "a preprocessing block 30 which receives at its input the output signals 16 and 26 of the first and second pressure detectors, and which carries out a treatment called PREPROCESSING consisting in a calculation of:the average pressure value PM of the oscillations of the output signal 16 of the first pressure detector 14 relative to the pressure obtaining at the input 11 of the dust chamber 12;the amplitude difference ΔP between maxima and minima of the oscillations of the output signal 16 of the pressure detector 14 relative to that same pressure;the difference between the average values (PM'-PM) of the pressures obtaining at the input 11 at measuring point 15 and at the output 23a or 23b of the dust chamber at measuring point 25. This calculation is carried out during time periods or "time windows" T of a sufficient length, for example of 2 seconds, during which an average user carries out at least one change in direction of the nozzle between a forward and a return stroke on the floor to be cleaned during a normal cleaning operation while the vacuum cleaner is switched on."; Delmas teaches the average pressure difference between the outlet and inlet of the dust chamber may be outputted from the preprocessing block 30 in Delmas [Column 11 lines 13-35] "The outputs 31, 32, 33 of the preprocessing block 30 are connected to a neuron network or classifier block 40 which comprises:1 to 3 inputs, 2 outputs for the signals to be calculated. The three inputs of the neuron network or classifier block 40 are formed by the three output signals calculated by the preprocessing block 30:a signal 31 representing the maximum value of the amplitude difference ΔP between the maxima and minima of the pressure oscillations of the signal provided by the floor type detector 14. To eliminate the effect of noise on the maximum and minimum values, a smoothing operation may be carried out on the signal, for example, through calculation of the average value over the 0.3-s windows; a signal 32 representing the average pressure amplitude value PM, supplied by the floor type detector 14; a signal 33 representing the difference in average pressure amplitude (PM'-PM) between the outlet and the inlet of the dust chamber. The coefficients of the neuron network relative to this input may be low."; Delmas Figs. 1A and 1B [As shown above in claim 6] teach the pressure sensors 14 and 24 being within a channel between a cleaning head of the vacuum and the chassis of the vacuum.).
Hensel, Gilbert, and Delmas are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of vacuum cleaners. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having teachings of Hensel, Gilbert, and Delmas before him/her, to modify the teachings of Method for cleaning a filter of a vacuum cleaner and vacuum cleaner for performing the method of Hensel modified to include the Robotic Vacuum of Gilbert to include the average pressure difference calculation of Delmas because including the Vacuum cleaner with floor type detection means of Delmas would eliminate the effect of noise as described in Delmas [Column 11 lines 13-35] "The outputs 31, 32, 33 of the preprocessing block 30 are connected to a neuron network or classifier block 40 which comprises: 1 to 3 inputs, 2 outputs for the signals to be calculated. The three inputs of the neuron network or classifier block 40 are formed by the three output signals calculated by the preprocessing block 30: a signal 31 representing the maximum value of the amplitude difference ΔP between the maxima and minima of the pressure oscillations of the signal provided by the floor type detector 14. To eliminate the effect of noise on the maximum and minimum values, a smoothing operation may be carried out on the signal, for example, through calculation of the average value over the 0.3-s windows; a signal 32 representing the average pressure amplitude value PM, supplied by the floor type detector 14; a signal 33 representing the difference in average pressure amplitude (PM'-PM) between the outlet and the inlet of the dust chamber. The coefficients of the neuron network relative to this input may be low."
Claim 12:
Claim 12 is substantially the same as claim 2 and it is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 3-4, 8-9, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hensel et al. (US20130312792A1), in view of Gilbert et al. (US20120311813A1), further in view of Delmas et al. (US5722109A), further in view of Tsuboi (CN112137492A), further in view of Kwak et al. (US20210121033A1).
Claim 3:
Hensel in view of Gilbert, further in view of Delmas teaches "The autonomous vacuum system of claim 2, wherein the instructions to execute the purge procedure further comprise instructions that when executed cause the controller device to: increase a speed of the vacuum to a [[(Hensel teaches increasing voltage to the motor 27 that provides suction in order to clean the filter in Hensel [0069] "As is immediately clear from FIGS. 5 and 6, the supply voltage of the electric motor 27 is increased before each interruption of the supply current of the electromagnet 50, and the supply voltage of the electric motor 27 is reduced again to the original value each time the supply current of the electromagnet 50 is applied again. Owing to the increase in the suction power of the suction unit 26 as a result of the increase in the supply voltage, an increased negative pressure always forms in the dirt collection container 12 when filter cleaning is being performed, it being possible for the filter cleaning to be carried out in a time-controlled manner by means of the control device 62 or also in a sensor-controlled manner by means of the two pressure sensors 84 and 86 or also by manual actuation of the push button 82."
PNG
media_image5.png
693
490
media_image5.png
Greyscale
),
“reduce the speed of the vacuum (Hensel teaches that Fig. 6 shows the supply voltage to the motor during the filter cleaning operation in Hensel [0068] "FIG. 5 shows the time-related course of the input voltage provided to the electronically controllable boost converter 76 by the control device 62, and FIG. 6 shows the time-related course of the output voltage of the boost converter 76, which it provides in the form of a supply voltage to the electric motor 27."; Hensel teaches that the supply voltage of the electric motor 27 is returned to the original value i.e. the vacuum returns to normal speed in Hensel [0069] "As is immediately clear from FIGS. 5 and 6, the supply voltage of the electric motor 27 is increased before each interruption of the supply current of the electromagnet 50, and the supply voltage of the electric motor 27 is reduced again to the original value each time the supply current of the electromagnet 50 is applied again."), and
“re-compute the pressure differential; and execute repeatedly the instructions to increase, reduce, and re-compute if the re-computed pressure differential is above a threshold.” (Hensel teaches after increasing voltage to the motor and returning to the original voltage 3 times, it returns to normal suction operation in Hensel [0066-0067] "The cleaning process is completed at the end of the third current interruption, i.e., at the point in time tE. In the illustrated embodiment, a complete cleaning process therefore includes three opening and closing movements of the external air valve in rapid succession. The length of the time interval between the points in time t2 and t3 may, for example, be 90 milliseconds. Following a cleaning process, normal suction operation resumes again by supply current being applied to the electromagnet 50 by the control device 62 and the external air valve 34 maintaining its closed valve position. The suction power of the suction unit 26 is kept constant during normal suction operation."; Hensel teaches that additional cleaning processes can be triggered in a sensor-controlled manner using the pressure sensors i.e. if the vacuum is still clogged, when re-computing the pressure differential the controller will repeat the filter cleaning process in Hensel [0067] "In the case of time-controlled filter cleaning, suction operation of, for example, 15 seconds is followed again by a cleaning process in which external air is supplied three times in an impact-like manner, as explained above. The length of the time interval between two cleaning processes is preferably manually adjustable. Alternatively or additionally, a cleaning process can be triggered manually by means of the push button 82 and/or in a sensor-controlled manner by means of the pressure sensors 84, 86.").
None of Hensel, Gilbert, or Delmas appear to explicitly teach “increase a speed of the vacuum to a top speed;” However, Tsuboi does teach this claim limitation (Tsuboi teaches maximizing suction in order to eliminate a clog in Tsuboi [0079] "If no clogging is detected, the operation in the first or second operation mode is continued. When clogging is detected, the control unit 8 controls the electric vacuum cleaner 50 to operate in the third operation mode (step S6 ). In the third operation mode, the control unit 8 controls the electric vacuum cleaner 50 so that the suction force becomes stronger than in the first and second operation modes (the electric power supplied to the first motor 3 becomes larger). For example, the suction force of the electric vacuum cleaner 50 can be maximized. Thus, the dust that is clogging the suction port 5 or the air flow path 6 can be sucked into the dust collection unit 11, and the clogging of the suction port 5 or the air flow path 6 can be eliminated.").
Hensel, Gilbert, Delmas and Tsuboi are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of vacuum cleaners. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having teachings of Hensel, Gilbert, Delmas, and Tsuboi before him/her, to modify the teachings of Method for cleaning a filter of a vacuum cleaner and vacuum cleaner for performing the method of Hensel modified to include the Robotic Vacuum of Gilbert, further modified to include the average pressure difference calculation of Delmas, to include the increasing suction force to maximum of Tsuboi because including the Electric vacuum cleaner of Tsuboi would allow for the vacuum to reliably suck in garbage, improving user convenience as described in Tsuboi [0079] "For example, the suction force of the electric vacuum cleaner 50 can be maximized. Thus, the dust that is clogging the suction port 5 or the air flow path 6 can be sucked into the dust collection unit 11 , and the clogging of the suction port 5 or the air flow path 6 can be eliminated. In addition, when the user uses the electric vacuum cleaner 50 to clean large garbage or a large amount of garbage, the suction port 5 or the air flow path 6 is likely to be blocked. Therefore, in this case, the suction force of the electric vacuum cleaner 50 can be automatically increased, and the electric vacuum cleaner 50 can reliably suck in the garbage. Therefore, user convenience is improved.”
None of Hensel, Gilbert, Delmas, or Tsuboi appear to explicitly teach “reduce the speed of the vacuum following a smooth spline to a normal speed;” However, Kwak does teach this claim limitation (Kwak teaches decreasing a suction power slowly i.e. following a smooth spline in Kwak [0065-0066] "In addition, unless the preset time period passes, the finally determined suction power may be maintained to be the first determined suction power such that the suction power decrease may be performed in the preset time period. Here, the process of decreasing the suction power may be gradually decreased. As mentioned above, it is preferred that the suction power increase is instantly performed at the moment when the suction power increase is needed. However, when the suction power decrease is instantly performed as it is needed, dust that is not collected in the dust container 2 is likely to flow back to the outside via the nozzle. Or, if the suction power is instantly decreased in a section where the floor material is changed, the dust suction may not be smoothly performed. Accordingly, it is preferred that the suction power may be decreased in a preset time period when the suction power decrease is performed.")
Hensel, Gilbert, Delmas, Tsuboi, and Kwak are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of vacuum cleaners. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having teachings of Hensel, Gilbert, Delmas, Tsuboi, and Kwak before him/her, to modify the teachings of Method for cleaning a filter of a vacuum cleaner and vacuum cleaner for performing the method of Hensel modified to include the Robotic Vacuum of Gilbert, further modified to include the average pressure difference calculation of Delmas, further modified to include the Electric vacuum cleaner of Tsuboi, to include the gradually decreasing of suction power of Kwak, because including the Vacuum cleaner and controlling method of Kwak would prevent dust from flowing back to the outside as described in Kwak [0065-0066] "In addition, unless the preset time period passes, the finally determined suction power may be maintained to be the first determined suction power such that the suction power decrease may be performed in the preset time period. Here, the process of decreasing the suction power may be gradually decreased. As mentioned above, it is preferred that the suction power increase is instantly performed at the moment when the suction power increase is needed. However, when the suction power decrease is instantly performed as it is needed, dust that is not collected in the dust container 2 is likely to flow back to the outside via the nozzle. Or, if the suction power is instantly decreased in a section where the floor material is changed, the dust suction may not be smoothly performed. Accordingly, it is preferred that the suction power may be decreased in a preset time period when the suction power decrease is performed."
Claim 4:
Hensel in view of Gilbert, further in view of Delmas, further in view of Tsuboi, further in view of Kwak teaches “The autonomous vacuum system of claim 3, wherein the instructions to execute the remedial action comprise instructions that when executed cause the controller device to provide a notification to a user of the autonomous vacuum system if the obstruction persists after executing repeatedly the increase, reduce, and re-compute.” (Tsuboi teaches providing a notification to a user if a clogged object after a purge procedure was executed and not able to remove the object in Tsuboi [0086-0087] "If the clogging of the air inlet 5 or the air flow path 6 cannot be eliminated even after the predetermined time has passed, there is a high possibility that the clogged object cannot be removed even if the suction force is increased. For example, it is considered that a curtain, a quilt, or the like is sucked onto the suction port 5 and blocks the suction port 5. In this case, by operating the electric vacuum cleaner 50 in the original first or second operation mode and reducing the suction force, the user can easily remove the object blocking the suction port 5 from the suction port 5. In step S9 , the control unit 8 may notify the user of the occurrence of clogging of the suction port 5 or the air flow path 6 through a notification unit (eg, a lamp, a buzzer, a display unit, etc.) of the electric vacuum cleaner 50. Thereby, the user can end the operation of the electric vacuum cleaner 50 (step S10 ) and remove the object clogging the suction port 5 or the air flow path 6.").
Claim 8:
Claim 8 is substantially the same as claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 9:
Claim 9 is substantially the same as claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 13:
Claim 13 is substantially the same as claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 14:
Claim 14 is substantially the same as claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 5, 10, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hensel et al. (US20130312792A1), further in view of Delmas et al. (US5722109A), further in view of Gilbert et al. (US20120311813A1), further in view of Irfan et al. (US20190183307A1).
Claim 5:
Hensel in view of Gilbert, further in view of Delmas teaches " The autonomous vacuum system of claim 1,” as described above. None of Hensel, Gilbert, or Delmas appear to explicitly teach “wherein the instructions to determine whether the channel contains the obstruction additionally comprises instructions that when executed cause the controller device to determine that a reading of at least one of the first pressure sensor or the second pressure sensor is above a threshold pressure value.” However, Irfan does teach this claim limitation (Irfan teaches determining a clog based on a pressure threshold in Infran [0066] "As described above, the sensor 402 measures a characteristic of the airflow and is used in a method 582 of controlling the handheld vacuum cleaner 10 (FIG. 10). The method 582 includes measuring a pressure value of the airflow through the fluid flow path (step 586). Specifically, measuring the pressure value of the airflow is measured downstream of the pre-motor filter 362, within the plenum 386. The method 582 also includes determining whether the pressure value exceeds a predetermined threshold, which is indicative of a clog within the fluid flow path (step 590). When the pressure value exceeds the predetermined threshold, the method 582 includes alerting a user of the vacuum cleaner (step 594). Alerting the user at step 594 includes transmitting an alert to the personal device 418 (e.g., cell phone, personal computer, etc.) of the user and, optionally, providing to the personal device information identifying to the user a plurality of possible clog locations along the fluid flow path on the display 434.").
Hensel, Gilbert, Delmas, and Infran are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of vacuum cleaners. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having teachings of Hensel, Gilbert, Delmas, and Infran before him/her, to modify the teachings of Method for cleaning a filter of a vacuum cleaner and vacuum cleaner for performing the method of Hensel modified to include the Robotic Vacuum of Gilbert, further modified to include the average pressure difference calculation of Delmas, to include the determination of a clog based on a pressure threshold of Infran because including the Handheld vacuum cleaner of Infran would allow for the user to receive instructions to clean the clog locations, improving functioning of the vacuum cleaner as described in Infran [0066] " In some embodiments, transmitting an alert to the personal device 418 is transmitted with direct vacuum-to-device wireless data communication (e.g., Wi-Fi®, Bluetooth®, or other radio signal). In other embodiments, transmitting an alert to the personal device 418 is transmitted via wired or wireless internet or network communication. The alert also includes instructions for the user to clean the possible clog locations along the fluid flow path to remove the clog, which are illustrated on the device display 434. Alerting the user further includes activating the visual indicator 422 positioned on the handheld vacuum cleaner 10. In some embodiments, the method 582 may further include the step of disabling the airflow through the fluid flow path when the pressure value exceeds the predetermined threshold. In some embodiments, the controller 426 is executing instructions in the form of an application program (a.k.a. an app), which enables the user to interface with the handheld vacuum cleaner 10 through the display 434.”
Claim 10:
Claim 10 is substantially the same as claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 15:
Claim 15 is substantially the same as claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hensel et al. (US20130312792A1), in view of Delmas et al. (US5722109A), further in view of Gilbert et al. (US20120311813A1), further in view of Sjoberg et al. (US20230240494A1).
Claim 16:
Hensel in view of Gilbert, further in view of Delmas teaches "The autonomous vacuum system of claim 1, wherein the first location of the channel is an end of the channel proximal to the cleaning head,” (Hensel Fig. 1 [As shown above in claim 1] teaches pressure sensor 84 being closer to suction hose 18 i.e. cleaning head than pressure sensor 86 i.e. it is proximal to the cleaning head), and
“wherein first location of the chassis is located in an airflow path of the air between the first location of the channel and the second location of the chassis.” (Hensel Fig. 1 [As shown above in claim 1] teaches pressure sensor 84 being in the airflow path. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have the knowledge to place the fourth pressure sensor in the location described as a design choice.).
None of Hensel, Gilbert, or Delmas appear to explicitly teach “and wherein the autonomous vacuum system further comprises: a third pressure sensor measuring pressure at a first location of the chassis proximal to the waste container; and a fourth pressure sensor measuring pressure at a second location of the chassis proximal to the waste container,” However, Sjoberg does teach this claim limitation (Sjoberg teaches a third and fourth pressure sensor in Sjoberg [0056] "FIG. 3 shows an example filter arrangement 300. To measure pressure differences, a first air pressure sensor 310 may be arranged to indicate the inlet air pressure P3 associated with the filter inlet 250 and a second air pressure sensor 320 may be arranged to indicate the outlet air pressure P4 associated with the filter outlet 260. It is appreciated that the first air pressure sensor may also be an air pressure sensor arranged to detect the pressure P2, i.e., immediately downstream from the pre-filter." and in Sjoberg [0081] "As noted above, the filter arrangement 200 may also comprise a pre-filter 240 with a pre-filter inlet and a pre-filter outlet arranged upstream from the essential filter 150. A third pressure sensor and a fourth pressure sensor may be arranged to measure a pressure difference between the pre-filter inlet air pressure P1 and the pre-filter outlet air pressure P2. The control unit 170 is then also arranged to detect a state of the pre-filter 240 based on the pressure difference between the pre-filter inlet air pressure P1 and the pre-filter outlet air pressure P2." It would be a design choice to place the pressure sensors in the locations described in the claim, which a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to determine the pressure differentials at the most appropriate locations in order to detect issues with the vacuum.).
Hensel, Gilbert, Delmas, and Sjoberg are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of vacuum cleaners. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having teachings of Hensel, Gilbert, Delmas, and Sjoberg before him/her, to modify the teachings of Method for cleaning a filter of a vacuum cleaner and vacuum cleaner for performing the method of Hensel modified to include the Robotic Vacuum of Gilbert, further modified to include the average pressure difference calculation of Delmas, to include the third and fourth pressure sensors of Sjoberg because including the Filter arrangements for industrial dust extractors of Sjoberg would allow for determination of an additional pressure differential at the appropriate locations, which would provide an advantage as described in Sjoberg [0018] “According to aspects, the filter arrangement comprises a pre-filter with a pre-filter inlet and a pre-filter outlet arranged upstream from the essential filter. A third pressure sensor and a fourth pressure sensor are arranged to measure a pressure difference between the pre-filter inlet air pressure and the pre-filter outlet air pressure. The control unit is arranged to detect a state of the pre-filter based on the pressure difference between the pre-filter inlet air pressure and the pre-filter outlet air pressure. Thus, detection of pre-filter state is also provided which is an advantage.” A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to determine the pressure differentials at the most appropriate locations in order to detect issues with the vacuum.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if rewritten to overcome the objections of claim 16 and 17.
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 Zachary A Cain whose telephone number is (571)272-4503. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00-3:30 CST.
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, Kenneth M Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9774. 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.
/Z.A.C./ Examiner, Art Unit 2116
/KENNETH M LO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2116
Prosecution Insights