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 .
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 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 – 20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/13/2023 was filed before the first office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: actuating means in at least claim 2; control means in at least claim 4 and selecting means in at least claim 6. The corresponding structure as outlined in the specification is as follows: actuating means; push button, 94a; Fig. 1; control means; dial, 96 in Fig. 2 and selecting means; push button 106 in Fig. 2.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Caspar (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0146520 A1).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Caspar teaches a remote control (integral external communications apparatus, 100; Fig. 1) adapted for controlling an operation status of a suction device (vacuum cleaner, 70; Paragraph [0089]), including a vacuum cleaner or a dust extraction system (Fig. 1), the remote control (100) comprising a radio transmitter for transmitting a first radio signal to the suction device (Paragraph [0173]) for turning on or off the suction device (Paragraphs [0095] – [0096]), wherein the remote control (100) further comprises a radio receiver (Paragraph [0161]) for receiving a second radio signal from a communication device (modules, 300A and B; Fig. 1) located at or near a second end of a suction hose (15; Paragraph [0159]), which is connected to a suction opening (suction inter, 72) of
PNG
media_image1.png
761
557
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the suction device (70) at a first end (Fig. 1) and to an air outlet (outlet, 39) of a hand- held electric or pneumatic power tool (20A and B) at the opposite second end (Fig. 1), or located at the hand-held electric or pneumatic power tool itself, the communication device (modules, 300A and B; Fig. 1) is adapted for detecting a current operation status of the hand-held electric or pneumatic power tool (Paragraph [0105]) and for emitting the second radio signal indicative of the current operation status of the hand-held electric or pneumatic power tool (Paragraph [0105]), and in that the remote control (100) is adapted for deriving from the received second radio signal received the current operation status of the hand-held electric or pneumatic power tool (Paragraph [0009]) and transmitting a respective first radio signal in order to automatically turn on or off the suction device (70) depending on the derived current operation status detected of the hand-held electric or pneumatic power tool (Paragraphs [0161] and [0169].
Regarding Claim 2, Caspar teaches the remote control (integral external communications apparatus, 100; Fig. 1) wherein remote control (100) further comprises actuating means (switching element, 78) for manually turning on or off the suction device based on a manual actuation of the actuating means by an operator or user of the hand-held electric or pneumatic power tool (Paragraph [0062]), and the actuating means (78) provokes the transmission of the a respective first radio signal to the suction device (70) through the radio transmitter thereby turning on or off the suction device (70; (Paragraph [0062]) – via operating element arrangement, 77).
Regarding Claim 3, Caspar teaches the remote control (integral external communications apparatus, 100; Fig. 1) wherein the remote control (100) is designed such that manually turning on or off the suction device (70) based on a manual actuation of the actuating means (78a) by an operator or user of the hand-held electric or pneumatic power tool overrules automatically turning on or off the suction device (70) depending on the derived current operation status detected of the hand-held electric or pneumatic power tool (Paragraph [0147]).
Regarding Claim 4, Caspar teaches the remote control (integral external communications apparatus, 100; Fig. 1) wherein the remote control (100) comprises control means (control device, 86) for manually controlling specific functions of the suction device based on a manual actuation of the control means by an operator or user of the hand-held electric or pneumatic power tool (Paragraphs [0146] and [0147]).
Regarding Claim 5, Caspar teaches the remote control (integral external communications apparatus, 100; Fig. 1) wherein the specific functions of the suction device comprise one or more of the following: - setting a speed of a motor of the suction device, - if the in a suction device has a plurality of motors, then activating or deactivating one or more of the plurality of motors, - if the in a suction device has the with a plurality of motors, then switching from at least one motor to at least another motor, and - temporarily switching into a filter cleaning mode for cleaning one or more air filter elements of the suction device (Paragraph [0185]).
Regarding Claim 6, Caspar teaches the remote control (integral external communications apparatus, 100; Fig. 1) wherein the remote control (100) further comprises selecting means for manually selecting an operation mode of the remote control (100) based on a manual actuation of the selecting means by an operator or user of the hand-held electric or pneumatic power tool (Paragraph [0148]).
Regarding Claim 7, Caspar teaches the remote control (integral external communications apparatus, 100; Fig. 1) wherein the operation mode of the remote control comprises one or more of the following: - an automatic operation mode during which the suction device is automatically turned on or off based on the derived current operation status detected of the hand-held electric or pneumatic power tool, - a manual operation mode during which the suction device is manually turned on or off depending on a manual actuation of the actuating means by an operator or user of the hand-held electric or pneumatic power tool or during which specific functions of the suction device are manually controlled depending on a manual actuation of the control means by the operator or user of the hand-held electric or pneumatic power tool, and - an inactive operation mode in which the remote control is turned off (Paragraphs [0146]] – [0148]).
Regarding Claim 8, Caspar teaches the remote control (integral external communications apparatus, 100; Fig. 1) wherein the remote control (100) has a microprocessor with a computer programmed application executable on the microprocessor for realizing the remote control functionality (Paragraph [0026]).
Regarding Claim 9, Caspar teaches the remote control (integral external communications apparatus, 100; Fig. 1) wherein the remote control is realized in the form of a smartphone (Paragraph [0026]).
Regarding Claim 10, Caspar teaches the remote control (integral external communications apparatus, 100; Fig. 1) wherein actuating means for manually turning on or off the suction device and/or control means for manually controlling specific functions of the suction device and/or selecting means for selecting an operation mode of the remote control are realized in the form of virtual buttons or controls that are displayed on a screen of the smartphone when a computer program application is executed on a microprocessor of the smartphone (Paragraphs [0177] – [0179]).
Regarding Claim 11, Caspar teaches the remote control (integral external communications apparatus, 100; Fig. 1) wherein the respective first radio signal and/-or the second radio signal is realized according to a Bluetooth-standard, to the ZigBee-standard, to a WiFi-standard, to an NFC-standard, or a telecommunication standard, like GSM, GPRS, EDGE, LTE, UMTS (Paragraph [0010]).
Regarding Claim 12, Caspar teaches the remote control (integral external communications apparatus, 100; Fig. 1) wherein remote control (100) comprises a radio receiver adapted for receiving a third radio signal from the suction device indicative of a current operation status of the suction device (70; Paragraphs [0089] – [0093]).
Regarding Claim 13, Caspar teaches the remote control (integral external communications apparatus, 100; Fig. 1) wherein the current operation status of the suction device (70) comprises one or more of the following: - a current fill level of a dust collection chamber of the suction device, - a current flow rate through one or more air filter elements of the suction device - if the in a suction device has a plurality of motors , then the number of and/or information on which motor is currently activated, - a current speed of the a-motor of the suction device, and - a current temperature of the motor of the suction device (Paragraph [0182]).
Regarding Claim 14, Caspar teaches a suction device (70; Fig. 1), comprising the remote control (100) according to claim 1.
Regarding Claim 15, Caspar teaches a computer program application executable on a microprocessor of a smartphone having a built-in radio transmitter and a built-in radio receiver (Paragraph [0026]), the computer program application being programmed in order to turn the smartphone into the a remote control according to claim 1,including using the-built-in radio transmitter and the built-in radio receiver the smartphone (Paragraphs [0026] and [0177]).
Regarding Claim 16, Caspar teaches the remote control (integral external communications apparatus, 100; Fig. 1) wherein the remote control (100) comprises control means for manually controlling specific functions of the suction device based on a manual actuation of the control means by an operator or user of the hand-held electric or pneumatic power tool (Paragraph [0177] – via input means, 503).
Regarding Claim 17, Caspar teaches the remote control (integral external communications apparatus, 100; Fig. 1) wherein the remote control (100) further comprises selecting means for manually selecting an operation mode of the remote control (100) based on a manual actuation of the selecting means by an operator or user of the hand-held electric or pneumatic power tool (Paragraph [0177] – via input means, 503).
Regarding Claim 18, Caspar teaches the remote control (integral external communications apparatus, 100; Fig. 1) wherein the remote control (100) has a microprocessor with a computer program application executable on the microprocessor for realizing remote control functionality (Paragraph [0118]).
Regarding Claim 19, Caspar teaches the remote control (integral external communications apparatus, 100; Fig. 1) wherein the remote control is realized in the form of a smartphone (Paragraph [0026]).
Regarding Claim 20, Caspar teaches the remote control (integral external communications apparatus, 100; Fig. 1) wherein the respective first radio signal and/or the second radio signal is realized according to a Bluetooth-standard, to a ZigBee-standard, to a WiFi-standard, to a NFC-standard, or a telecommunication standard, like GSM, GPRS, EDGE, LTE, UMTS (Paragraph [0010]).
Conclusion
Art made of record, however, not relied upon for the current rejection is as follows: Markus (EP 2628427 A2) teaches a remote control (control device, 37) adapted for controlling an operation status of a suction device (suction device, 10), including in particular a vacuum cleaner or a dust extraction system (Fig. 1), the remote control (37) comprising a radio transmitter (external transmitter) for transmitting a first radio signal (control signal) to the suction device (10; Paragraph [0006]) for turning on or off the suction device (10; Paragraph [0009]), wherein the remote control (37) further comprises a radio receiver (external receiver; Paragraph [0006]) for receiving a second radio signal (Paragraph [0119])) from a communication device (suction device communication device; Paragraph [0005]) located at or near a second end of a suction hose (suction hose, 18; Fig. 1), which is connected to a suction opening (suction inlet, 17) of the suction device (10) and at a first end of an air outlet (suction end, 31) of a hand- held electric or pneumatic power tool (handheld power tool, 80) at the opposite second end (Fig. 1), or located at the hand-held electric or pneumatic power tool (80) itself, the communication device is adapted for detecting a current operation status of the hand-held electric or pneumatic power tool (80; Paragraph [0014]) and for emitting the second radio signal indicative of the current operation status of the hand-held electric or pneumatic power tool (80; Paragraph [0027]), and in that the remote control (37) is adapted for deriving from the received second radio signal received the current operation status of the hand-held electric or pneumatic power tool and transmitting to transmit a respective first radio signal in order to automatically turn on or off the suction device (10) depending on the derived current operation status detected of the hand-held electric or pneumatic power tool (80; Paragraphs [0027], [0065] and [0096]).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATINA N HENSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8024. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday; 5:30am to 3:30pm.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-272-4475. 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.
/KATINA N. HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723