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 April 1, 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 April 1, 2026.
The applicant’s amendments to claim 1 are sufficient to overcome the rejection of claims, as presented in the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection, which previously indicated the claims as being anticipated by Thur (US PG Pub No. 20040034962). As such, the rejection from the previous action will be updated to address the amended limitations as presented.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-7, filed April 1, 2026 have been fully considered.
Claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102, 103: Applicant’s remarks with respect to claim 1 and its dependents have been considered. The applicant’s arguments are directed towards a previous interpretation of the claims, wherein it appeared that the air inlet and dirt chute were two separate elements. The art relied upon, Thur, was applied and interpreted in order to address the limitations. However, in light of the applicant’s amendments, wherein there is a single element understood as serving the responsibilities of an “air inlet” and a “dirt chute”, Thur has been reinterpreted within the following action to address the claimed limitations. The claim language requires that the air inlet/dirt chute be “arranged to feed air carrying dust particles into the space between the inner wall and outer wall of the filtration chamber…for (intended use/functional purpose) discharging dirt and/or dust from the vacuum cleaner.” Essentially, the air inlet/dirt chute brings dust particles into the filtration chamber to direct towards the filter and eventually out of the vacuum cleaner. The initial inlet of Thur accomplishes this. Please see the updated action, presenting a new interpretation of Thur in light of the amendments. The applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
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 1-4, 6-10, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Thur et al. (US PG Pub No. 20040034962).
In regards to claim 1, Thur discloses
a vacuum cleaner (vacuum cleaner A, fig. 1-6) comprising:
a filtration chamber (airflow chamber 34, fig. 2-3) with an inner wall (support member 62, fig. 2-4 and 6) and an outer wall (structure of dust cup 36, see fig. 3 - ann. 1);
an air inlet (airflow chamber inlet 102, fig. 3 - ann. 1) arranged to feed air carrying dust particles into the space between the inner wall (support member 62, fig. 2-4 and 6) and outer wall (structure of dust cup 36, see fig. 3 - ann. 1) of the filtration chamber (airflow chamber 34, fig. 2-3);
a dirt chute for discharging dirt and/or dust from the vacuum cleaner, wherein the air inlet and dirt chute are the same passage (as such, air inlet and dirt chute will be covered by the same part from Thur); and
a tapered filter (tapered filter media 64, fig. 2-4 and 6) located between the inner wall (support member 62, fig. 2-4 and 6) and the outer wall (structure of dust cup 36, see fig. 3 - ann. 1) of the filtration chamber (airflow chamber 34, fig. 2-3),
wherein the tapered filter (tapered filter media 64, fig. 2-4 and 6) comprises a narrow end (see fig. 3 - ann. 1) and a wide end (see fig. 3 - ann. 1),
and the narrow end of the filter is located proximate to the dirt chute (see fig. 3 – ann. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
776
1162
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 2, Thur discloses
the vacuum cleaner according to claim 1, wherein the vacuum cleaner (vacuum cleaner A, fig. 1-6) has a longitudinal axis and the air inlet and the dirt chute (airflow chamber inlet 102, fig. 3 - ann. 1) extends along the longitudinal axis (see fig. 3 – ann. 2).
PNG
media_image2.png
776
1162
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 3, Thur discloses
the vacuum cleaner according to claim 1, wherein the outer wall (structure of dust cup 36, see fig. 3 - ann. 1) is air impermeable ([0037]) and the inner wall (support member 62, fig. 2-4 and 6) is air permeable (see fig. 3 – ann. 3),
[0037] The dirt cup 36…is capable of receiving and retaining dust and dirt from a suction airstream produced by the vacuum cleaner A (it won’t let dust out, therein impermeable).
such that there is an airflow path from the air inlet (airflow chamber inlet 102, fig. 3 - ann. 1), through the tapered filter (tapered filter media 64, fig. 2-4 and 6), and through the inner wall (support member 62, fig. 2-4 and 6).
PNG
media_image3.png
778
1251
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 4, Thur discloses
the vacuum cleaner according to claim 1, wherein the inner wall (support member 62, fig. 2-4 and 6) defines a cavity (see fig. 3 – ann. 4).
PNG
media_image4.png
778
1173
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 6, Thur discloses
the vacuum cleaner according to claim 1, wherein the inner wall (support member 62, fig. 2-4 and 6) is cylindrical ([0031]) and/or the outer wall (structure of dust cup 36, see fig. 3 - ann. 1) is cylindrical ([0047]).
[0031] With reference again FIG. 3, a filter assembly 60 is disposed within a portion the chamber 34 defined by the dirt cup 36 upstream from the suction source. With additional reference to FIG. 6, the filter assembly 60 can include a frustoconical or tapered frame or support member 62 that supports a frustoconical or tapered filter media or element 64 mounted on the frame 62 in an annular manner. More specifically, an interior surface of the filter element 64 can substantially match the exterior surface of the frame 62. It is believed that the conical shape of the filter improves filtering efficiency,
[0047] With reference to FIG. 2 … the generally cylindrical configuration of the cyclonic airflow chamber 34 causes the suction airstream to follow a swirling or cyclonic path downward within the chamber 34.
Examiner’s Note: Cylindrical is understood as having a circular or oval cross section. So while the inner and outer wall change diameter, the cross section is in the shape of an oval/circle.
In regards to claim 7, Thur discloses
the vacuum cleaner according to claim 1, wherein the inner wall (support member 62, fig. 2-4 and 6; [0031]) and/or the outer wall (structure of dust cup 36, see fig. 3 - ann. 1) is tapered (see fig. 3 – ann. 5).
PNG
media_image5.png
778
1173
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 8, Thur discloses
the vacuum cleaner according to claim 1, wherein the outer wall (structure of dust cup 36, see fig. 3 - ann. 1) tapers in an opposite direction (see fig. 3 – ann. 6) to the tapered filter (tapered filter media 64, fig. 2-4 and 6).
PNG
media_image6.png
778
1173
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 9, Thur discloses
the vacuum cleaner according to claim 1, wherein the tapered filter (tapered filter media 64, fig. 2-4 and 6) is thinner toward the air inlet and dirt chut (see fig. 3 – ann. 1; narrow end is adjacent to the region by air inlet 102).
In regards to claim 10, Thur discloses
the vacuum cleaner according to claim 1, wherein the tapered filter (tapered filter media 64, fig. 2-4 and 6) tapers in a straight line from the wide end of the tapered filter (tapered filter media 64, fig. 2-4 and 6) to the narrow end (see fig. 3 – ann. 7) of the tapered filter (tapered filter media 64, fig. 2-4 and 6).
PNG
media_image7.png
778
1173
media_image7.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 12, Thur discloses
the vacuum cleaner according to claim 1, wherein the tapered filter (tapered filter media 64, fig. 2-4 and 6) has a consistent thickness from the narrow end to the wide end (see fig. 3 – ann. 8).
PNG
media_image8.png
778
1173
media_image8.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 13, Thur discloses
the vacuum cleaner according to claim 1, wherein the tapered filter (tapered filter media 64, fig. 2-4 and 6) comprises a narrow end ring (rigid filter cap 68, fig. 6) to provide structural integrity to the narrow end of the tapered filter (tapered filter media 64, fig. 2-4 and 6).
Examiner’s note: The limitation of “to provided structural integrity” is considered an intended use limitation. The rigid filter cap of Thur mates with the frame 62 seated within the filter to assist in holding the filter in place, providing structural integrity.
In regards to claim 14, Thur discloses
the vacuum cleaner according to claim 1, wherein the tapered filter (tapered filter media 64, fig. 2-4 and 6) comprises a wide end ring (seal 72, fig. 6) to provide structural integrity to the wide end of the tapered filter (tapered filter media 64, fig. 2-4 and 6).
Examiner’s note: The limitation of “to provided structural integrity” is considered an intended use limitation. The seal 72 of Thur mates with the frame 62 seated within the filter to assist in holding the filter in place, providing structural integrity.
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 Thur et al. (US PG Pub No. 20040034962) in view of Holsten (US PG Pub No. 20130228194).
In regards to claim 5, Thur 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 (tapered filter media 64, fig. 2-4 and 6) to release dust from the tapered filter (tapered filter media 64, fig. 2-4 and 6) during emptying of the vacuum cleaner (vacuum cleaner A, fig. 1-6).
Holsten, which also discloses a vacuum cleaner employing a cylindrical filter, teaches an agitator within a cavity of the vacuum cleaner.
PNG
media_image9.png
426
660
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
327
582
media_image10.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…
[0056] … Cleaning device 116 may include a cleaning surface 134 for cleaning filter 104. Cleaning surface 134, or another portion of cleaning device 116, may, but need not, contact filter 104, for example, to dislodge debris stuck thereto. Cleaning surface 134 may be any surface on cleaning device 116 required by a particular application, and may be flat, smooth, contoured, bumpy or, as other examples, may include bristles or teeth for cleaning. Cleaning device 116 may include a rubbing surface 136, such as a buffer or bumper, for defining the position of cleaning surface 134 relative to a surface to be cleaned, as will be further described below.
[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.
Thur 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 Thur 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 Thur et al. (US PG Pub No. 20040034962) .
In regards to claim 11, Thur discloses
the vacuum cleaner according to claim 1, wherein the tapered filter (tapered filter media 64, fig. 2-4 and 6) 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 Thur 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).
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
Prosecution Insights