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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“at least one means” in claims 1 and 16
Defined within claim 16: said at least one means configured to act on the flow comprising: a waste separation device disposed on the aeraulic circuit, and a motor-fan unit disposed on the aeraulic circuit comprising an electric motor and a fan coupled to the electric motor to generate an air flow
“connecting means” in claims 2 and 17
Defined within claim 17: connecting walls, connecting arms or intermediate connecting parts
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Murphy et al. (US PG Pub No. 20020026775).
In regards to claim 1, Murphy discloses
a floor cleaning appliance (vacuum cleaner A, fig. 1-9) comprising:
a main body including:
a case (dirt container D, fig. 1-7 and 9) delimited at least partially by an external wall (see fig. 6 - ann. 1),
PNG
media_image1.png
420
889
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a fluid inlet (inlet conduit 102, fig. 2-6, 9) configured to receive a fluid flow from outside the case (dirt container D, fig. 1-7 and 9), and
at least one means (filter assembly F, fig. 4-6; [0035-0040]) and motor fan and electric motor [0026]), disposed in the case (dirt container D, fig. 1-7 and 9), configured to act on the fluid flow received through the fluid inlet (inlet conduit 102, fig. 2-6, 9);
[0026] As illustrated in FIGS. 5, 6 and 8, the main housing supports the suction source G therein. The suction source can comprise an electrically driven motor operably coupled to a fan/impeller assembly that rotates in response to operation of the motor. The suction source G establishes and maintains an airstream that flows from an suction source inlet 20 to an exhaust outlet 22, both defined by the housing B.
[0037] With the filter assembly F in its operative position, it is located in covering relation with the dirt cup airstream outlet 36 so that an airstream exiting the dirt separation chamber 30 through the dirt cup airstream outlet 36 must pass through the filter element 122. As shown in FIGS. 4 and 7, the cap 120c of the filter assembly F is defined with an integral scalloped grip or the like to facilitate manual grasping of the filter element F as required to connect same to and disconnect same from the dirt cup D.
[0038] Downstream from the suction source G, a final filter or exhaust filter 140 (FIG. 8) can be located between the suction source G and the exhaust outlet 22 of the main body B. The exhaust filter 140, which can comprise a HEPA or conventional filter medium, filters contaminants from the airstream exhausted by the suction source G before same exits the main housing B through the exhaust outlet 22.
first and second main wheels (wheels 10, fig. 1-3, 5, 7-9; [0025]) rotatably mounted on the main body and disposed on either side of the main body, the first and second main wheels (wheels 10, fig. 1-3, 5, 7-9; [0025]) including a first and second tread, respectively; and
[0025] The main housing B is defined from a plurality of interconnected molded plastic pieces. One or more wheels 10 are rotatably connected to the main housing and movably support same on a floor or other support surface.
a protective structure (cover B, fig. 1-9) configured to protect the first and second main wheels (see fig. 2/3 – ann. 1),
PNG
media_image2.png
672
870
media_image2.png
Greyscale
the protective structure (cover B, fig. 1-9) disposed outside the case (dirt container D, fig. 1-7 and 9) and extending at a distance from the external wall (see fig. 2/3 – ann. 1), the protective structure (cover B, fig. 1-9) covering a first and a second portion of the first and second treads, respectively (see fig. 2/3 – ann. 1).
PNG
media_image3.png
672
1008
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 2, Murphy discloses
the cleaning appliance according to claim 1, wherein the protective structure (cover B, fig. 1-9) is connected to the main body by connecting means (see fig. 5 – ann. 1).
PNG
media_image4.png
514
1232
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 3, Murphy discloses
the cleaning appliance according to claim 1, wherein the protective structure (cover B, fig. 1-9) forms a handle assembly (handle 26, fig. 1-3, 5, and 7-9; [0024]) configured to be gripped by the user.
In regards to claim 4, Murphy discloses
the cleaning appliance according to claim 3, wherein the handle assembly (handle 26, fig. 1-3, 5, and 7-9; [0024]) comprises one single handle with a substantially annular shape or U-like shape or an open ring like shape (see fig. 2 – ann. 1).
PNG
media_image5.png
354
829
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 5, Murphy discloses
the cleaning appliance according to claim 1, wherein the protective structure (cover B, fig. 1-9) covers top of the first and second main wheels (see fig. 2/3 – ann. 2).
PNG
media_image6.png
672
870
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 6, Murphy discloses
wherein cleaning appliance according to claim 5, wherein the fluid inlet (inlet conduit 102, fig. 2-6, 9) is disposed on a front portion of the main body (see fig. 2 – ann. 2) and
the protective structure (cover B, fig. 1-9) covers the top of the first and second main wheels and extends forward of the main body to at least partially cover front of the first and second main wheels (see fig. 2- ann. 2).
PNG
media_image7.png
434
973
media_image7.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 7, Murphy discloses
the cleaning appliance according to claim 1, wherein the protective structure (cover B, fig. 1-9) comprises first and second external surfaces extending in front of and above the first and second main wheels (see fig. 2/3 – ann. 3), respectively,
the first and second external surfaces extending in direction of first and second axes of rotation of the at least first and second main wheels (see fig. 2/3 – ann. 3), respectively, and are inclined such the first and second external surfaces progressively deviate from each other (see fig. 2/3 – ann. 3).
PNG
media_image8.png
672
870
media_image8.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 8, Murphy discloses
the cleaning appliance according to claim 1, wherein the first and second main wheels (wheels 10, fig. 1-3, 5, 7-9; [0025]) are annular wheels rotating about a first and second fixed hub (see fig. 8 – ann. 1), respectively secured to the main body (see fig. 8 – ann. 1).
PNG
media_image9.png
398
1035
media_image9.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 14 Murphy discloses
the cleaning appliance according to claim 1, wherein the protective structure (cover B, fig. 1-9) comprises first and second internal protective surfaces which directly faces the portions of the first and second treads of each main wheel (see fig. 2 – ann. 3), respectively.
PNG
media_image10.png
354
829
media_image10.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 15, Murphy discloses
the cleaning appliance according to claim 14,
wherein each of the first and second internal protective surface is concave and curved around the corresponding one of the first and second portions of the tread of each main wheel (see fig. 2 – ann. 3).
In regards to claim 16, Murphy discloses
the cleaning appliance according to claim 1, wherein the cleaning appliance (vacuum cleaner A, fig. 1-9) is a sled-type suction assembly (vacuum cleaner or suction assembly that can move by rolling on the ground per applicant’s specification), the main body comprising an aeraulic circuit (see fig. 5 – ann. 2)
PNG
media_image11.png
430
904
media_image11.png
Greyscale
which extends between the fluid inlet (inlet conduit 102, fig. 2-6, 9) and a fluid outlet (exhaust outlet 22, fig. 1-2, 9; [0026], [0038])of the suction assembly, said at least one means configured to act on the flow comprising:
a waste separation device (filter assembly F, fig. 4-6; [0036-0040]) disposed on the aeraulic circuit, and
a motor-fan unit ([0026]) disposed on the aeraulic circuit comprising an electric motor and a fan coupled to the electric motor to generate an air flow in the aeraulic circuit when the suction assembly is in operation.
[0026] As illustrated in FIGS. 5, 6 and 8, the main housing supports the suction source G therein. The suction source can comprise an electrically driven motor operably coupled to a fan/impeller assembly that rotates in response to operation of the motor. The suction source G establishes and maintains an airstream that flows from an suction source inlet 20 to an exhaust outlet 22, both defined by the housing B.
In regards to claim 17, Murphy discloses
the cleaning appliance according to claim 2, wherein the connecting means comprises connecting walls, connecting arms or intermediate connecting parts (see fig. 5 - ann. 1).
In regards to claim 18, Murphy discloses
the cleaning appliance according to claim 16, wherein the waste separation device (filter assembly F, fig. 4-6; [0036-0040]) comprises a cyclonic separator or a filter (filter element 122, fig. 4-6).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy et al. (US PG Pub No. 20020026775) in view of Sunderland (US PG Pub No. 20120079676).
In regards to claim 9, Murphy discloses
the cleaning apparatus according to claim 8, but fails to explicitly disclose that each of the first and second fixed hubs has an external surface “forming a spherical cap.” While the hubs of Murphy are shown with a curved surface, they do not anticipate the form of a “spherical” cap.
Sunderland discloses “a cleaning appliance” that “includes a substantially spherical surface engaging rolling assembly having a fluid inlet for receiving a fluid flow and a system for drawing the fluid flow through the inlet.. (abstract).”
Sunderland further discloses:
[0012] As used herein, the term "a substantially spherical surface engaging rolling assembly" includes a spheroidal surface engaging rolling assembly….Each of these rolling elements preferably has a curved, preferably dome-shaped, outer surface, and preferably has a rim which is substantially flush with the respective adjoining portion of the main body of the rolling assembly so that the rolling assembly may have a relatively continuous outer surface which can improve maneuverability of the appliance.
[0013] … Each of the rolling elements preferably has an outer surface with substantially spherical curvature, and is preferably substantially hemispherical.
[0070] The rolling assembly 20 will now be described with reference to FIGS. 6(a) and 8. The rolling assembly 20 comprises a main body 22 and two curved wheels 24, 26 rotatably connected to the main body 22 for engaging a floor surface. In this embodiment the main body 22 and the wheels 24, 26 define a substantially spherical rolling assembly 20.
[0071] Each of the wheels 24, 26 of the rolling assembly 20 is generally dome-shaped. Each wheel 24, 26 comprises an outer wheel member 220 and an inner wheel member 222 connected to the outer member 220 about the periphery thereof.
Murphy and Sunderland are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vacuum cleaner appliances.
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 Murphy and provide it with the outer wheel members (220) disclosed by Sunderland, forming spherical caps, creating a rolling assembly with “a relatively continuous outer surface which can improve maneuverability of the appliance (Sunderland [0012]).”
In regards to claim 10, Murphy as modified discloses
the cleaning appliance according to claim 9, wherein the main body, the first and second annular wheels (see fig. 7/8 – ann. 1) and the first and second fixed hubs (outer member 220 taught by Sunderland) form an assembly with a generally spherical shape (Sunderland [0011-0013]) and the protective structure (cover B, fig. 1-9) extends partially around and at a distance from the generally spherical shape (see fig. 2 – ann. 3).
Claim(s) 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy et al. (US PG Pub No. 20020026775) in view of Kim et al. (US PG Pub No. 20120084939).
In regards to claim 11, Murphy discloses
the cleaning appliance according to claim 1, but fails to disclose that the first and second main wheels (wheels 10, fig. 1-3, 5, 7-9; [0025]) are “omnidirectional type wheels”.
Kim, which also discloses a sled-type vacuum cleaner teaches omnidirectional wheels:
[0035] Here, the wheel member 100 includes a main rotation member 111 and 121 rotatably provided in the body 10 and a plurality of auxiliary rotation members 112 and 122 arranged in an outer portion of the main rotation member 11 and 121.
[0038] If the user moves the body 10 rightward and leftward, the body 10 may movable leftward and rightward according to the rotation of the auxiliary rotational members 112 and 122.
[0060] FIG. 4 is a diagram illustrating the second wheel member 120 of the wheel member according to the present invention.
[0061] As mentioned above, the second wheel member 120 includes the main rotation member 121 having the rotational shaft supporter 123 and the plurality of the auxiliary rotation members 122 rotatably provided in the outer portion of the main rotation member 121.
[0062] Accommodation parts 124 are provided in the main rotation member 121 to accommodate the auxiliary rotation members 122.
[0063] Here, the auxiliary rotation members 122 may be arranged in a circumferential portion of the main rotation member 121, spaced apart a predetermined distance from each other. Also, an outermost portion of each auxiliary rotation members 122 may be extended further outward than an outermost portion, that is, an outer circumferential surface of the main rotation member 121.
[0064] This is because the rotational direction has to be changed quickly between the main rotation member 121 and the auxiliary rotation members 122 as mentioned above.
[0065] Compared to the auxiliary rotation members 112 provided in the first wheel member 110 shown in FIG. 2, a shape of the auxiliary rotation member 122 arranged in the second wheel member 120 looks like a cylinder having a regular sectional diameter.
PNG
media_image12.png
513
528
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
513
472
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Murphy and Kim are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of sled-type vacuum cleaners.
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 Murphy and provide it with the wheels taught by Kim, configured to be omnidirectional (see fig. 1 and 4) comprising of smaller auxiliary wheels for the main wheels’ tread, so that “Kim [0014]… the movement direction of the body or the suction nozzle may be changed smoothly. A rotational radius with respect to the direction change is reduced, compared with the conventional vacuum cleaner. As a result, the movement direction can be changed even in a narrow cleaning space .”
In regards to claim 12, Murphy as modified discloses
the cleaning appliance according to claim 11, wherein each of the first and second main wheels (wheels 120 of Kim, fig. 1 and 4 of Kim) comprises a plurality of rotating rollers (auxiliary rotation members 122 of Kim, fig. 1 and 4 of Kim) distributed over the periphery of corresponding one of the first and second main wheels (wheels 120 of Kim, fig. 1 and 4 of Kim) and forming the first and second treads, the protective structure (cover B, fig. 1-9) capable of covering several of the plurality of rotating rollers.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy et al. (US PG Pub No. 20020026775) in view of UMEZAWA (JP2002345693A).
In regards to claim 13, Murphy discloses
the cleaning appliance according to claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose that each of two first and second main wheels (wheels 10, fig. 1-3, 5, 7-9; [0025]) has “an external diameter which is larger than 2/3 of height of the main body measured from” a horizontal surface on which the first and second main wheels (wheels 10, fig. 1-3, 5, 7-9; [0025]) are placed.
Umezawa, which discloses a sled-type vacuum cleaner teaches advantages for larger wheel sizes:
[0087] Specifically, the vacuum cleaner body 100 according to this embodiment has a basic shape of a sphere having a diameter W of 250 mm...The diameter h1 of the main wheel 101 is set to 160 mm, paying attention to the fact that when the diameter W is made smaller, the size of the cut at the lower part of the sphere becomes larger and the internal volume of the cleaner body 100 becomes smaller. That is, in this embodiment, the diameter h1 of the main wheel has a size of about 65% with respect to the diameter W of the sphere, but a similar effect is obtained by a ratio of 60% to 70%, for example, the diameter…
[0088] Further, in order to install the main wheel 101 on the floor surface and allow good traveling, if the vehicle height is low, the sill may hit the flat portion 103 and damage the sill. Therefore, in this embodiment, the vehicle height h3 is set to 15 mm. According to this height, even if the main wheel 101 of the vehicle width W1 straddles the sill and becomes slanted, the flat portion 103 rarely hits the sill. Further, if the main wheels 101 are arranged at the center of both sides of the sphere and have the vehicle height h3 and the diameter h2, it is possible to smoothly change the direction and prevent the vehicle from tipping over. Furthermore, it is possible to overcome the threshold and the code.
Murphy and Umezawa are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of sled-type vacuum cleaners.
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 Murphy to incorporate the teachings of Umezawa and provide wheels that were at least 2/3 of the height (between 60%-70% as taught by Umezawa) in order to improve device maneuverability, allow for good traveling, and stable movement without the device tipping over while changing direction (Umezawa [0087-008]).
Conclusion
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