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 .
Response to Amendments
The Examiner acknowledges the Terminal Disclaimer, the previous Double Patenting rejection is withdrawn. The Examiner acknowledges the amendments, the previous 102 and 103 rejections are withdrawn. New rejections are set forth herein and are made final.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “on board energy storage” as discussed in claim 21 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21-37 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “a finger guard comprising an on board energy store is positioned forward of the handle”. There is no discussion of a finger guard or energy storage therein, in the specification. In the drawings, there appears to be circles drawn in an extension of the handle, but without any discussion to these components, it is unclear on what these components really are. As such the claim limitation is viewed as new matter.
Claims 21, 27, 32 recite the limitation “wherein the dirty air inlet remains in a fixed position with respect to the clean air outlet during a cleaning operation”. This limitation does not appear in the specification. The drawings show what appear to be hinges along the cyclone chamber. There is no discussion in the specification of a switch or anything that would not allow the motor to operate when the cyclone is opened. As such the claim is determined to be new matter.
Claims 22-26, 28-31, and 33-37 are rejected due to dependency.
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.
Claims 25, 31, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrad (US 2013/0232722) in view of Lubbers (US 20200015645).
Regarding claim 21, Conrad discloses a hand vacuum cleaner comprising:
(a) an air flow path extending from a dirty air inlet (Item 16) to a clean air outlet (Item 34);
(b) a cyclone (Item 48) positioned in the air flow path, the cyclone comprising a cyclone chamber air inlet (Item 40), a cyclone chamber air outlet (Item 56) at a cyclone chamber rear end, a centrally positioned cyclone axis of rotation(Figure 2);
(c) a filter (Item 64) positioned in the air flow path downstream from the cyclone chamber, the pre-motor filter having an open interior passage having a passage axis; and,
(d) a main body (Item 10) housing a suction motor (Item 36) that is positioned in the air flow path downstream of the pre-motor filter, the suction motor has a motor axis of rotation,
wherein the passage axis and the motor axis of rotation are parallel and,
wherein a handle is provided on a lower end of the main body (Item 30).
Conrad fails to explicitly disclose a finger guard comprising an on board energy store is positioned forward of the handle, and wherein the dirty air inlet remains in a fixed position with respect to the clean air outlet during a cleaning operation.
Lubber teaches a hand vacuum cleaner wherein a finger guard comprising an on board energy store is positioned forward of the handle (Items B and H; Figure 12), and wherein the dirty air inlet remains in a fixed position with respect to the clean air outlet during a cleaning operation (Annotated Figure 12). Lubber shows how the battery can be placed in several different configurations including in front of the handle. Lubber also shows clearly the dirty air inlet coming off the cyclone chamber and to the floor tool. Although Conrad must have this pathway for the vacuum to function properly, it does not clearly show this component. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the location of known vacuum components, such as the batteries to be in front of the handle as taught by Lubber. The components and arrangements of components are commonly optimized to ensure the overall vacuum is small in size and functionally efficient. Smaller vacuums take up less space and are easier to use.
PNG
media_image1.png
337
654
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 22 and 33, Conrad discloses the hand vacuum cleaner of claim 21 wherein a rear end of the pre-motor filter is located rearward of the cyclone (technically shown in Figure 2)
Regarding claim 23, 29, and 34, Conrad in view of Lubber disclose the hand vacuum cleaner of claim 21 wherein the cyclone air inlet is located at the front end of the cyclone (Conrad Figure 2).
Regarding claim 24, 30, and 35, Conrad in view of Lubber disclose the hand vacuum cleaner of claim 21 wherein the handle is a pistol grip handle (Conrad Figure 1; Lubber Figure 12).
Regarding claim 26, Conrad in view of Lubber disclose the hand vacuum cleaner of claim 21. Conrad fails to explicitly disclose wherein the cyclone axis of rotation and the motor axis of rotation extend through the open interior passage.
In another embodiment, Conrad teaches wherein the cyclone axis of rotation and the motor axis of rotation extend through the open interior passage (Figure 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the location of the pre motor filter as taught by the second embodiment. Such a modification is viewed as a rearrangement of parts, which has been held to be of routine by one skilled in the art (see MPEP 2144.04). Changing the size, shape, and configuration of the vacuum components (cyclone, pre motor filter, and suction motor), allows the vacuums body to be as small as possible. The components and arrangements of components are commonly optimized to ensure the overall vacuum is small in size and functionally efficient. Further in the instant application, there does not appear to be any criticality or unpredictable result by the configuration claimed above.
Regarding claim 27, Conrad discloses a hand vacuum cleaner comprising:
(a) an air flow path extending from a dirty air inlet (Item 16) to a clean air outlet (Item 34);
(b) a cyclone (Item 48) positioned in the air flow path, the cyclone comprising a cyclone chamber air inlet (Item 40), a cyclone chamber air outlet (Item 56) at a cyclone chamber rear end, a centrally positioned cyclone axis of rotation, a cyclone chamber front end axially spaced from the cyclone chamber rear end and a cyclone chamber sidewall extending between the cyclone chamber front end and the cyclone chamber rear end (Figure 2);
(c) a pre-motor filter (Item 64) positioned in the air flow path downstream from the cyclone chamber, the pre-motor filter having an open interior passage having a passage axis; and,
(d) a suction motor (Item 36) positioned in the air flow path downstream of the pre- motor filter, the suction motor has a motor axis of rotation,
Conrad fails to explicitly disclose wherein the cyclone axis of rotation and the motor axis of rotation extend through the open interior passage.
In another embodiment, Conrad teaches wherein the cyclone axis of rotation and the motor axis of rotation extend through the open interior passage (Figure 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the location of the pre motor filter as taught by the second embodiment. Such a modification is viewed as a rearrangement of parts, which has been held to be of routine by one skilled in the art (see MPEP 2144.04). Changing the size, shape, and configuration of the vacuum components (cyclone, pre motor filter, and suction motor), allows the vacuums body to be as small as possible. The components and arrangements of components are commonly optimized to ensure the overall vacuum is small in size and functionally efficient. Further in the instant application, there does not appear to be any criticality or unpredictable result by the configuration claimed above.
Conrad fails to explicitly disclose wherein the dirty air inlet has a dirty air inlet axis, and the dirty air inlet axis is parallel to the cyclone axis of rotation, and wherein the dirty air inlet remains in a fixed position with respect to the clean air outlet during a cleaning operation
Lubber teaches a vacuum wherein (Annotated Figure 12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the connection between the floor tool and the cyclone to be a rigid straight tube as taught by Lubber. In Conrad, there is a connection between Items 16 and 40, but doesn’t disclose if its rigid or straight or any details. Lubber shows different arrangements between the cyclone inlet and the dirty air inlet. As such, the modification is viewed as a change in shape, which has been held to be of routine by one skilled in the art (see MPEP 2144.04). The components and arrangements of components are commonly optimized to ensure the overall vacuum is small in size and functionally efficient. Smaller vacuums take up less space and are easier to use.
Regarding claim 32, Conrad discloses a hand vacuum cleaner comprising:
(a) an air flow path extending from a dirty air inlet (Item 16) to a clean air outlet (Item 34);
(b) an air treatment chamber (Item 48) positioned in the air flow path, the air treatment chamber comprising an air treatment chamber air inlet (Item 40), an air treatment chamber air outlet (Item 56) at an air treatment chamber rear end, an air treatment chamber front end axially spaced from the air treatment chamber rear end, a centrally positioned axis extending between the air treatment chamber front end and the air treatment chamber rear end (Figure 2 annotated as “b”), and an air treatment chamber sidewall extending between the air treatment chamber front end and the air treatment chamber rear end (Figure 2);
(c) a pre-motor filter (Item 64) positioned in the air flow path downstream from the air treatment chamber, the pre-motor filter having an open interior passage having a passage axis; and,
(d) a suction motor (Item 36) positioned in the air flow path downstream of the pre- motor filter, the suction motor has a motor axis of rotation, wherein the centrally positioned axis and the motor axis of rotation extend through the open interior passage (Figure 2).
Conrad fails to explicitly disclose wherein the dirty air inlet has a dirty air inlet axis, and the dirty air inlet axis is parallel to the cyclone axis of rotation, and wherein the dirty air inlet remains in a fixed position with respect to the clean air outlet during a cleaning operation
Lubber teaches a vacuum wherein (Annotated Figure 12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the connection between the floor tool and the cyclone to be a rigid straight tube as taught by Lubber. In Conrad, there is a connection between Items 16 and 40, but doesn’t disclose if its rigid or straight or any details. Lubber shows different arrangements between the cyclone inlet and the dirty air inlet. As such, the modification is viewed as a change in shape, which has been held to be of routine by one skilled in the art (see MPEP 2144.04). The components and arrangements of components are commonly optimized to ensure the overall vacuum is small in size and functionally efficient. Smaller vacuums take up less space and are easier to use.
Regarding claim 37, Conrad in view of Lubber disclose the hand vacuum cleaner of claim 32 wherein the centrally positioned axis, the passage axis and the motor axis of rotation are parallel (Figure 2).
Claims 25, 31, and 36 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrad (US 2013/0232722) in view of Lubbers (US 20200015645) in view of Conrad (US 2006/0137314) herein referred to as Conrad B.
Regarding claim 25, 31, and 36, Conrad in view of Lubber disclose the hand vacuum cleaner of claim 21 further comprising a dirt collection chamber (Item 42) exterior to the cyclone chamber and in communication with the cyclone chamber. Conrad fails to explicitly disclose a plurality of dirt outlets provided in the cyclone chamber sidewall.
Conrad B teaches a vacuum cleaner wherein a plurality of dirt outlets provided in the cyclone chamber sidewall (Figure 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply substitute the plate that separates the dust collection chamber from the cyclone in Conrad for that taught in Conrad B. The slots in the plate, along the sidewall, would allow a flow path for the dirt to pass from the cyclone to the dust collection chamber. Such a modification would allow the cyclone to be extremely efficient without the need for a plurality of cyclones (Conrad B Paragraph 7).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrad (US 2013/0232722) in view of Lubbers (US 20200015645) in view of Conrad (US 2010/0229327) herein referred to as Conrad C.
Regarding claim 28, Conrad discloses the hand vacuum cleaner of claim 27. Conrad fails to explicitly disclose wherein a rear end of the pre-motor filter is located rearward of the cyclone.
As discussed in Paragraph 75, Conrad’s arrangement of the vacuum cleaner was originally disclosed for an upright vacuum, but it can also be developed as a hand vacuum cleaner. Which would affect what is considered to be up/ down and forward/backward. Conrad C further teaches that a hand vacuum can also be aligned but wherein a rear end of the pre-motor filter is located rearward of the cyclone (Items 122 and 162). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Conrad to be able to operate as a hand vacuum in a horizontal mode as taught by Conrad C. Such a modification would allow the configuration of Conrad to be used as a hand vacuum. Conrad C shows one possibility on how this configuration might look.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/3/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 21, 27, and 32 under 102 and 103 by Conrad (2013/0232722) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of in view of Lubbers (US 20200015645). Applicant’s arguments/amendments are directed toward giving more meaning toward the preamble “a hand vacuum cleaner”. The motor and filter arrangement of Conrad can be applied to any known vacuum type (hand, stick, upright, etc). Since this is the core of any vacuum cleaner.
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 TOM R RODGERS whose telephone number is (313)446-4849. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8AM-5PM EST.
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.
/TOM RODGERS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights