DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Amendments/Response filed on August 27, 2026. Claim 1 has been amended. No additional claims have been added. No claims have been cancelled. Claims 1-14 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendments
The examiner fully acknowledges the amendments to claim 1 filed on August 27, 2026.
The applicant’s amendments to claim 1 are sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection, which previously indicated the claims as being anticipated by Thur (US PG Pub No. 20040034962).
The amended claim 1 requires that the narrow end of the tapered filter be in “direct contact” with the dirt chute. The narrow end of Thur occupies the cavity of the dirt chamber, but fails to make contact with the dirt chute. The amendment is considered to overcome the art of record.
As a result, please see the new rejection, relying upon Takemoto (US PG Pub No. 20050150075) in place of Thur.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments, see pages 4-6, filed August 27, 2026 have been fully considered.
102 Rejections: The examiner agrees with the applicant that Thur fails to anticipate the entirety of claim 1, as the filter narrow end is in direct contact with the dirt chute.
103 Rejections: The examiner agrees with the applicant that Holsten does not correct the deficiencies of Thur.
However, the examiner maintains the claims are not yet in conditions for allowance. Please see the new rejection relying upon Takemoto set forth within the present action.
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 –
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, 10, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Takemoto et. al. (US PG Pub No. 20050150075).
In regards to claim 1, Takemoto discloses
a vacuum cleaner (at least vacuum cleaner body 20, hose 21, pipe 23; fig. 1) comprising:
a filtration chamber (suction separation section 60, fig. 3, 6 10) with an inner wall (frame W1, fig. 3, 6-8) and an outer wall (see fig. 7 - ann. 1);
PNG
media_image1.png
552
1126
media_image1.png
Greyscale
an air inlet (suction opening 52, fig. 3, 6, 10) arranged to feed air carrying dust particles into the space between the inner wall (frame W1, fig. 3, 6-8) and outer wall (see fig. 7 - ann. 1) of the filtration chamber;
a dirt chute (connection hole 63d, fig. 3, 6, 10) for discharging dirt and/or dust from the vacuum cleaner (at least vacuum cleaner body 20, hose 21, pipe 23; fig. 1), wherein the air inlet (suction opening 52, fig. 3, 6, 10) and dirt chute (connection hole 63d, fig. 3, 6, 10) are the same passage (see fig. 3 – ann. 1); and
a tapered filter (net filter F2, fig. 3, 6, 10) located between the inner wall (frame W1, fig. 3, 6-8) and the outer wall (see fig. 7 - ann. 1) of the filtration chamber, wherein the tapered filter (net filter F2, fig. 3, 6, 10) comprises a narrow end and a wide end (see fig. 3 – ann. 1), and
the narrow end of the tapered filter (net filter F2, fig. 3, 6, 10) is located proximate to and is in direct contact (see fig. 3 – ann. 1) with the dirt chute (connection hole 63d, fig. 3, 6, 10).
PNG
media_image2.png
506
1139
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 2, Takemoto discloses
the vacuum cleaner according to claim 1, wherein the vacuum cleaner has a longitudinal axis and the air inlet (suction opening 52, fig. 3, 6, 10) and the dirt chute (connection hole 63d, fig. 3, 6, 10) extends along the longitudinal axis (see fig. 3 – ann. 2).
PNG
media_image3.png
506
885
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 3, Takemoto discloses
the vacuum cleaner according to claim 1, wherein the outer wall is air impermeable (solid, shown in fig. 7) and the inner wall (frame W1, fig. 3, 6-8) is air permeable (inner wall has perforation 64, see fig. 7), such that there is an airflow path from the air inlet (suction opening 52, fig. 3, 6, 10), through the tapered filter (net filter F2, fig. 3, 6, 10), and through the inner wall.
In regards to claim 4, Takemoto discloses
the vacuum cleaner according to claim 1, wherein the inner wall (frame W1, fig. 3, 6-8) defines a cavity (the space within inner wall and frame sections W3; see fig. 7).
In regards to claim 6, Takemoto discloses
the vacuum cleaner according to claim 1, wherein the inner wall (frame W1, fig. 3, 6-8) is cylindrical and/or the outer wall is cylindrical (see fig. 3, 6, 7 and 10; inner wall is a disc, thus cylindrical).
In regards to claim 7, Takemoto discloses
the vacuum cleaner according to claim 1, wherein the inner wall (frame W1, fig. 3, 6-8) and/or the outer wall (see fig. 7 – ann. 2) is tapered.
PNG
media_image4.png
552
1130
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 8, Takemoto discloses
the vacuum cleaner according to claim 1, wherein the outer wall tapers in an opposite direction (see fig. 7 – ann. 3) to the tapered filter (net filter F2, fig. 3, 6, 10).
PNG
media_image5.png
552
1106
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 10, Takemoto discloses
the vacuum cleaner according to claim 1, wherein the tapered filter (net filter F2, fig. 3, 6, 10) tapers in a straight line from the wide end of the tapered filter (net filter F2, fig. 3, 6, 10) to the narrow end of the tapered filter (see fig. 3, 6, and 10; tapers along linear frame W3).
In regards to claim 12, Takemoto discloses
the vacuum cleaner according to claim 1, wherein the tapered filter (net filter F2, fig. 3, 6, 10) has a consistent thickness from the narrow end to the wide end (see fig. 3, 6 and 10).
In regards to claim 13, Takemoto discloses
the vacuum cleaner according to claim 1, wherein the tapered filter (net filter F2, fig. 3, 6, 10) comprises a narrow end ring (circular end of filter F2, see fig. 6) to provide structural integrity to the narrow end of the tapered filter.
In regards to claim 14, Takemoto discloses
the vacuum cleaner according to claim 1, wherein the tapered filter (net filter F2, fig. 3, 6, 10) comprises a wide end ring (circular end of filter F2, see fig. 6) to provide structural integrity to the wide end of the tapered filter.
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) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takemoto in view of Holsten (US PG Pub No. 20130228194).
In regards to claim 5, Takemoto discloses
the vacuum cleaner according to claim 4, but fails to disclose that the cavity houses “an agitation mechanism” arranged to agitate dust filtered by the tapered filter (net filter F2, fig. 3, 6, 10) to release dust from the tapered filter (net filter F2, fig. 3, 6, 10) during emptying of the vacuum cleaner.
Holsten, which also discloses a vacuum cleaner employing a cylindrical filter, teaches an agitator within a cavity of the vacuum cleaner.
PNG
media_image6.png
327
582
media_image6.png
Greyscale
[0049] Filter system 100 may also include a manifold 114, such as an air intake manifold, for example, for routing air, such as filtered air. Manifold 114 may further include a cleaning device 116, for example, an agitator, coupled thereto for removing debris from filter 104 during cleaning…
[0055] With continuing reference to FIG. 4, filter system 100 may include a cleaning device 116, such as an arm, extension, or agitator, for dislodging media from a filter during cleaning, which will be further described below. Cleaning device 116 may have any length, width, or size required by a particular application, and may be coupled to manifold 114 so that cleaning device 116 extends along side filter cage 118…
[0057] Cleaning device 116 may be formed from any material and in any manner, for example, cleaning device 116 may be machined, molded, cast, or otherwise formed from plastic, metal, aluminum, composite, alloy, or another material, in whole or in part. Cleaning device 116 may be coupled to manifold 114, or any portion thereof, in any manner, such as formed integrally therewith or coupled thereto, in whole or on part. Cleaning device 116 may preferably be rigidly coupled to manifold 114, for example, so that cleaning device 116 may not move or rotate relative to a filter during cleaning, resisting any temporary displacement resulting from forces applied to cleaning device 116 during cleaning (e.g., from torque, friction, or the like), as will be readily understood by one of ordinary skill.
Takemoto and Holsten are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vacuum with cylindrical filters.
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 Takemoto and provide an agitator in the form of a cleaning device as taught by Holsten coupled in the cavity “in any manner” as needed, in order to facilitate cleaning the filter during operation ([0054-056]), preventing debris build up on the filter that would adversely affect its ability to further filter particles drawn in during the vacuuming process.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takemoto et al. (US PG Pub No. 20040034962) .
In regards to claim 11, Takemoto discloses
the vacuum cleaner according to claim 1, wherein the tapered filter (net filter F2, fig. 3, 6, 10) comprises an outer surface and an inner surface, but fails to disclose “a first portion” of the tapered filter the outer surface is parallel with the inner surface and in a second portion of the tapered filter the outer surface tapers toward the inner surface.”
However, it 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 to modify the filter of Takemoto with regards to a desired shape (in this case, portions of the external surface being parallel and tapered relative to the inner) in adapting the connector for a particular application, since such modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04_IV_B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In regards to claim 9, Takemoto discloses the vacuum cleaner according to claim 1, but fails to disclose that the tapered filter (net filter F2, fig. 3, 6, 10) is thinner toward the air inlet (suction opening 52, fig. 3, 6, 10) and dirt chute (connection hole 63d, fig. 3, 6, 10).
As shown in figure 1, applicant’s air inlet and dirt chute are both positioned closer to a front of the vacuum cleaner (elements 102 and 120), embody the same passage for air/dirt movement, and the filter is nestled/circumscribed by the dirt chute (120). Takemoto’s filter is in contact with a strike portion (64), acting as the dirt chute. However, the strike portion is arranged sequentially after the filter, as opposed to the filter being surrounded by it. As such, the thinner side of the tapered filter of Takemoto is toward the air inlet, but away from the dirt chute.
To modify the prior art in the manner as disclosed would be impermissible hindsight reconstruction of the applicant's invention without any disclosures, teaching, or suggestions from the art of record, as is presently the case.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON KHALIL HAWKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-5446. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 8-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JASON KHALIL HAWKINS/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights