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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“cleaning module” in claim 1, 2, 3, 7, corresponding to cleaning module 300
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.
Cleaning module in claims 12-14 is recited with sufficient structure such that 35 USC 112(f) is not invoked.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/879,560 (reference application), in view of Brown (US 20170196429 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the reference application recites the limitations recited in the instant claim 1 as indicated below.
Instant Claims
Reference Claims
1. A cleaner comprising:
a cleaner main body comprising a main battery and a handle configured to be grasped by a user;
a cleaning module detachably coupled to the cleaner main body and configured to eliminate debris on a floor surface; an auxiliary battery housing detachably coupled to the cleaning module;
and an auxiliary battery detachably coupled to the auxiliary battery housing and configured to supply power to the cleaner main body or the cleaning module, wherein the main battery is configured to supply power to the cleaning module.
1. A cleaner comprising:
a cleaner body including a battery and a handle gripped by a user;
a cleaning module which is detachably coupled to the cleaner body and removes foreign substances on a floor surface;
an auxiliary battery housing which is detachably coupled to the cleaning module; and an auxiliary battery which is detachably coupled to the auxiliary battery housing and supplies power to the cleaner body or the cleaning module, wherein the auxiliary battery housing comprises:
an auxiliary battery receiver in which an auxiliary battery receiving groove into which the auxiliary battery is inserted is formed;
a stopper which is provided in the auxiliary battery receiver in such a manner as to be able to perform a linear reciprocating motion and prevents the auxiliary battery receiver
from being separated when coupled to the cleaning module; and
a release button which is provided in the auxiliary battery receiver in such a manner as to be able to perform a linear reciprocating motion and moves the stopper when an external force is applied.
As for the specific differences between a main body (instant claim), and a body (reference claim), or main battery (instant claim) and battery, that difference amounts to a difference in what a body/battery is named, and does not result in a non-obvious structural difference. As for a difference between eliminating debris (instant claim) and removing foreign substances (reference claim), a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have understood that debris on a floor and foreign substances on a floor have analogous meanings, resulting in an obvious difference.
Regarding wherein the main battery is configured to supply power to the cleaning module, Brown, in the same field of endeavor, related to cleaning, teaches of providing a main battery within an analogous main body (main body 100, fig. 1; [0510]) and another battery [auxiliary battery] within a cleaning tool (cleaning tool/module 154, fig. 1; [0510]), and arranging the battery in a selectable series and parallel configuration in a way that can provide power to both the main body and the cleaning module ([0510-0511]). Brown teaches that this arrangement allows for selectively having longer run times and higher suction levels compared to using only a single battery in the vacuum, as an alternative to having the batteries electrically isolated from each other ([0510-0511]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the claims of copending app 18/879,560, to have the main battery configured to supply power to the cleaning module, as part of the arrangement taught by Brown with selectable series and parallel configuration, for the advantages of having either longer run times or higher suction levels.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-7, 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (JP 2014200406 A) in view of Brown (US 20170196429 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Tanaka discloses: A cleaner comprising:
a cleaner main body (12, fig. 1; [0014]) comprising a main battery (25, fig. 1; [0015]) and a handle configured to be grasped by a user (22, fig. 1; [0015]);
a cleaning module detachably coupled to the cleaner main body and configured to eliminate debris on a floor surface (cleaning module as the portion enclosed within suction tool body 56, fig. 5, [0057-0058] with a brush within; 112(f) equivalent as a floor cleaning head);
an auxiliary battery housing detachably coupled to the cleaning module (58, fig. 5; [0025], which can be disconnected from suction tool body 56, an be unlocked from portion 163, fig. 5 of the cleaning module as in [0060]); and
an auxiliary battery detachably coupled to the auxiliary battery housing and configured to supply power to the cleaner main body or the cleaning module (replaceable [detachable] battery 77, fig. 5; [0028;0064], supplies power to cleaning module [brush] within body [cleaning module] 56, as in [0058]).
Tanaka does not explicitly disclose wherein the main battery is configured to supply power to the cleaning module. Tanaka instead discloses that the main battery provides power to the main body (battery 15 provide power to the fan motor 27, [0015-0016], within housing 20 of main body 12), and the auxiliary battery provides power to the cleaning head (battery 77 supplies power to cleaning module [brush] within body [cleaning module] 56, as in [0058]).
Brown, in the same field of endeavor, related to cleaning, teaches of providing a main battery within an analogous main body (main body 100, fig. 1; [0510]) and another battery [auxiliary battery] within a cleaning tool (cleaning tool/module 154, fig. 1; [0510]), and arranging the battery in a selectable series and parallel configuration in a way that can provide power to both the main body and the cleaning module ([0510-0511]). Brown teaches that this arrangement allows for selectively having longer run times and higher suction levels compared to using only a single battery in the vacuum, as an alternative to having the batteries electrically isolated from each other ([0510-0511]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tanaka, to have the main battery configured to supply power to the cleaning module, as part of the arrangement taught by Brown with selectable series and parallel configuration, for the advantages of having either longer run times or higher suction levels.
With respect to claim 2, Tanaka, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches: an extension tube configured to connect the cleaning module and the cleaner main body (Tanaka, extension tube 14, fig. 1; [0020], connects [directly or indirectly] cleaning module and cleaner main body as shown in fig. 1), wherein the auxiliary battery housing is disposed between [at least a portion of] the extension tube and [at least a portion of] the cleaning module (Tanaka, see position of housing 58 relative to cleaning module 56 and main body 12, a detailed view of the connection is shown in fig. 4; instant figs. 4 and 12 shows the battery housing 400 sleeved on a part of the cleaning module, thus “between” is understood as between at least a portion of the extension tube and/or the cleaning module- see placement of instant support element 385, part of instant extension tube 382 of the instant cleaning module in fig. 12 fitting into instant main body 421 of the coupling part 420 of the instant auxiliary battery housing).
With respect to claim 5, Tanaka, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 2 above, and further teaches: wherein the auxiliary battery is inclined downward and inserted into and coupled to the auxiliary battery housing (Tanaka, auxiliary battery 77, fig. 4 is inclined downwards and inserted in housing 58, fig. 4 in the angled position shown in fig. 4).
With respect to claim 6, Tanaka, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 5 above, and further teaches: wherein a direction in which the auxiliary battery is inserted has an angle of 0 degrees or more and less than 90 degrees with respect to a longitudinal direction of the extension tube (Tanaka, battery 77, fig. 4 is shown parallel [0 deg] with respect to a longitudinal direction of the extension tube 14, fig. 4, further description in [0028], referring to fig. 6).
With respect to claim 7, Tanaka, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 2 above, and further teaches wherein the cleaning module comprises a connection tube to which the extension tube and the auxiliary battery housing are coupled (Tanaka, connection tube 134, fig. 5 of the cleaning module terminates at a spigot 163, fig .5; [0053], which is coupled to auxiliary battery housing at 60, fig. 4, [0042,0053]), and wherein an upper end of the auxiliary battery is disposed to be farther from the floor surface than is an upper end of the connection tube in a state in which the auxiliary battery is coupled to the auxiliary battery housing and the auxiliary battery housing is coupled to the connection tube (see detail of fig. 4 where auxiliary batteries 77 are positioned above the spigot 163 of the connection tube).
With respect to claim 9, Tanaka, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, however does and further teaches wherein the auxiliary battery is connected in series to the main battery. Tanaka discloses that the main battery provides power to the main body (the arrangement of Brown, [0510-0511], provides for a selectable series and parallel arrangement between the two batteries as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above)
With respect to claim 10, Tanaka, as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches wherein the auxiliary battery is connected in parallel to the main battery (the arrangement of Brown, [0510-0511], provides for a selectable series and parallel arrangement between the two batteries as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above).
With respect to claim 11, Tanaka, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches wherein the auxiliary battery is connected selectively in series or in parallel to the battery (the arrangement of Brown, [0510-0511], provides for a selectable series and parallel arrangement between the two batteries as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (JP 2014200406 A) in view of Brown (US 20170196429 A1) and further in view of Horst (GB 2550041 A).
With respect to claim 3, Tanaka, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 2 above, and further teaches wherein in a state in which the auxiliary battery is coupled to the auxiliary battery housing and the extension tube and the cleaning module are coupled (Tanaka, see the detailed view in fig. 4, and the fully assembled view in figs. 1-2), the auxiliary battery is disposed to be farther from the floor than is a portion where the extension tube and the cleaning module are coupled with each other (Tanaka, the extension tube 14 terminates in a receiving portion 48, fig. 5 [0036] and a connection tube 134, fig. 5 of the cleaning module terminates at a spigot 163, fig .5; [0053], and both couple at a portion 60, figs. 2, 4; [0042,0053], and the battery at 77, fig. 4 is further above the floor in that position, relative to the up/down direction of the figure consistent with the orientation of the reference characters in the figure [for clarity, this orientation would be the publication paper rotated clockwise 90 degrees). Tanaka, as modified, does not explicitly teach that the auxiliary battery is disposed to be farther from the floor than is a portion where the extension tube and the cleaning module are in contact with each other.
Horst, in the same field of endeavor, related to cleaning teaches of an arrangement where a battery is disposed to be farther from the floor than is a portion where the extension tube and the cleaning module are in contact with each other (battery 10, fig. 1; is above the point of connection of an extension tube 5 [portion 5b], fig. 1, and the point of the cleaning module at 12 where the extension tube is swivel mounted into the cleaning module [floor part 1]; page 7 lines 27-39; the energy storage is described on page 8 lines 8-15). Horst describes this arrangement as making it easier to handle the cleaner with the placement of mass away from the floor surface (page 3 lines 2-17).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tanaka such that a battery is disposed to be farther from the floor than is a portion where the extension tube and the cleaning module are in contact with each other, as taught by Horst, to make it easier to handle the cleaner, with the placement of mass away from the floor surface. This placement would result the battery housing positioned between the cleaning module, and a portion of the extension tube consistent with instant figs. 4 and 12 shows the battery housing 400 sleeved on a part of the cleaning module, thus “between” is understood as between at least a portion of the extension tube and/or the cleaning module (see rejection of claim 2 above).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (JP 2014200406 A) in view of Brown (US 20170196429 A1) and further in view of Ko (KR 200148059 Y1).
With respect to claim 12, Tanaka, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, however does not explicitly teach wherein the cleaning module comprises: at least one mop configured to wipe the floor surface; and a mop driving motor configured to provide a rotational force to the mop.
Ko, in the same field of endeavor, related to cleaning, teaches of providing a combined steam vacuum cleaner (abstract), where the cleaning module (shown overall in fig. 3; page 2 lines 32-37) comprises: at least one mop configured to wipe the floor surface (mops as clean means 50 fig. 3, page 3 lines 13-17, that rotate using rotary means 40 to clean a bottom of the floor) and a mop driving motor configured to provide a rotational force to the mop (motor as drive means 16, receives power to rotate, page 3 lines 8-12). Ko teaches that this arrangement helps keep the floor more clean over conventional vacuum cleaners (page 2 lines 8-24).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tanaka, with the mop and mop motor of Ko, for the purpose of keeping the floor more clean.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (JP 2014200406 A) in view of Brown (US 20170196429 A1) and Ko (KR 200148059 Y1), and further in view of Nuttall (US 20140259515 A1).
With respect to claim 13, Tanaka, as modified teaches the limitations of claim 12 above, however does not explicitly teach wherein the cleaning module comprises: a water tank configured to store water; and a diffuser configured to discharge moisture, which is supplied from the water tank, to the mop.
Ko further teaches of wherein the cleaning module comprises: a water tank configured to store water (water tank 21, fig. 3; page 2 last 4 lines - page 4 line 6); and a diffuser configured to discharge moisture, which is supplied from the water tank, to the mop (diffuser as nozzle 30, fig. 3, page 3 lines 6-15). Ko teaches that this arrangement helps keep the floor more clean over conventional vacuum cleaners (page 2 lines 8-24).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tanaka, with the mop and mop motor of Ko, for the purpose of keeping the floor more clean.
Specifically regarding the nozzle being a diffuser in Ko, Nuttall, in the same field of endeavor, provides evidence that the conical nozzle is a diffuser (308, fig. 3, [0035]). Alternatively, Nuttall teaches that diffusing nozzles help distribute the steam on the floor (308, fig. 3, [0035]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tanaka (including the nozzle of Ko), with the diffuser of Nuttall, for the purpose of spreading the steam further out.
With respect to claim 14, Tanaka, as modified teaches the limitations of claim 13 above, however does not explicitly teach wherein the cleaning module further comprises a steam generator configured to heat water introduced from the water tank and supply the heated water to the diffuser.
Ko further teaches of wherein the cleaning module comprises: comprises a steam generator configured to generate steam using water introduced from the water tank and supply the steam to the diffuser (steam generator 20, fig. 3; page 2 last 4 lines - page 4 line 6; generates steam through ultrasonic waves). Ko teaches that this arrangement helps keep the floor more clean over conventional vacuum cleaners (page 2 lines 8-24). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tanaka, with the mop and mop motor of Ko, for the purpose of keeping the floor more clean.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tanaka, with the steam generator of Ko, for the purpose of keeping the floor more clean.
Regarding the steam cleaner being configured to heat water introduced from the water tank and supply the heated water to the diffuser, as noted above, Ko provides that the steam is generated by ultrasonic waves. Nuttall further teaches that steam can be generated by heat ([0006-0007]), and that batteries can supply the energy needed to generate stream ([0022]). MPEP 2143 provides that simple substitution of one element for another to obtain predicable results is obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have substituted the ultrasonic wave stream generator taught by Ko, and incorporated into Tanaka, for the heater taught by Nuttall, to obtain a predictable result of generating steam by heating, which further results in the steam cleaner being configured to heat water introduced from the water tank and supply the heated water to the diffuser.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (JP 2014200406 A) in view of Brown (US 20170196429 A1) Ko (KR 200148059 Y1), and Nuttall (US 20140259515 A1), and further in view of Chung (US 20070130718 A1).
With respect to claim 15, Tanaka, as modified teaches the limitations of claim 12 above, however does not explicitly teach wherein the auxiliary battery supplies power to the steam generator. Tanaka, however discloses that the auxiliary battery provides power to the cleaning module (Tanaka, battery 77 supplies power to cleaning module [brush] within body [cleaning module] 56, as in [0058]; it is further noted above in the rejections of claims 13-14, that Tanaka, as modified by Ko and Nuttall provides for a steam generator as part of the cleaning module, additionally as noted in the rejection of claim 14 above, Nuttall at [0022] teaches that steam generators that operate by heating can be battery powered).
Chung, in the same field of endeavor, related to cleaning, provides for a battery placed proximate to the cleaning module (battery 22, fig. 3; [0038], is analogously placed like the battery 77 of Tanaka on an extension 1, fig. 2 of the cleaning head; [0034]). Chung teaches that the battery powers the steam generator ([0051-0052], referring to steam generator 14, fig. 2) and that corded cleaners have issues with range due to limits with the power cable length ([0008-0009]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tanaka such that the auxiliary battery supplies power to the steam generator, using the teachings of Chung, to increase the range of the cleaner away from a power outlet. A person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have powered the steam generator from the auxiliary battery in Tanaka, given that the auxiliary battery, located proximate to the cleaning module, supplies power to the cleaning module.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the double patenting rejection, the examiner notes that as shown above, the amendment is obvious over Brown. The applicant did not otherwise provide specific arguments regarding the rejection.
The applicant has argued (response page 7-9) that neither Tanaka, nor Brown provide for the limitation of “the main battery is configured to supply power to the cleaning module”. Regarding Tanaka applicant has argued that the battery 25 powers the fan in the main body while the battery 77 powers the brush, and the battery pack 25 is not used to power the brush so it does not affect the run time. Regarding Brown, the applicant argued that Brown teaches of isolating the main battery and the auxiliary battery so that an electrical connection is not required, and also argued that there is no teaching of any connection between the two batteries. While the examiner does not disagree with the disclosure in Tanaka that the battery pack 25 is not used to power the brush so it does not affect the run time, the examiner disagrees with the assertation regarding Brown, in that Brown teaches of an explicit connection between the two batteries and the advantage of such arrangement: “an electrical connection can be provided between the hand vacuum 100 and the wand 150, and between the wand 150 and surface cleaning head 154, and the batteries 174 (in the wand or hand vacuum) can be connected in any suitable configuration, including in series with each other or in parallel with each other, or may be switchable from parallel to series connection to change the voltage and/or run time for different applications […] the batteries can provide at least some power to the suction motor 124 and at least some power to the surface cleaning head 154. This may help provide longer run times, higher suction levels or both as compared to only using the power supplied from the hand vacuum” ([0510]). The examiner respectfully submits that this provides for an explicit teaching of interconnection of the two batteries, and provides for an explicit advantage that this can provide for longer run times, higher suction levels of both by combining the power of the two batteries, rather than just using the power from the hand vacuum (or the main battery in the hand vacuum). If the applicant’s arguments are construed to mean that Tanaka teaches away from the combination in that battery pack 25 is not used to power the brush so it does not affect the run time, the examiner does not find this persuasive because MPEP 2145 X D provides that the nature of the teaching is highly relevant in the determination of obviousness and that “a reference does not teach away if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not criticize, discredit or otherwise discourage investigation into the invention claimed”. The examiner here finds that there would be no teaching away from a combination of Tanaka and Brown, even though Tanaka teaches that battery pack 25 is not used to power the brush so it does not affect the run time, because of the explicit advantages of Brown where the use of both batteries contributes to a longer run time (or higher suction power), and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a longer run time is desirable, and would find that a longer run time would not be explicitly discouraged by Tanaka, but rather, Tanaka appears to be disclosing that powering both the brush and the suction fan in the main body by a single power source of the main battery would reduce the run time of the battery in the main body due to the additional draw from the brush (in contrast to the teachings of Brown where both batteries are used to extend the overall run time or provide for additional power). As for the alleged use of isolated disclosures in the references, the examiner submits that the references are used for all of which they teach, and in particular, with Brown, the examiner referred to specific advantages of the selected configuration, which provides for the necessary motivation to combine.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Steven Huang whose telephone number is (571)272-6750. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 6:30 am to 2:30 pm, Friday 6:30 am to 11:00 am (Eastern Time).
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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/Steven Huang/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights