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 .
Election/Restriction
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species
Species 1: a hand vacuum cleaner with a rotatable handle (Figs. 1-18E);
Species 2: a hand vacuum cleaner with a pistol grip handle (Figs. 19A-26B).
The species are independent or distinct because the different species have mutually exclusive characteristics for each identified species. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, There are no generic.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply: In particular, the different species contain distinct structural difference for each handle; the pistol grip handle extending downwardly with an energy storage member at the lower end of the pistol grip handle and a handle that is rotatably adjustable. The structural elements for each species would have minimal overlap between one another in the field of search. The search for each species would require a narrow, text-based search through many classes/subclasses. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record. Performing individualized searches on each species would be overly burdensome on the examiner.
If applicant chooses Species 1, this application is directed towards the following distinct sub-species:
Sub-Species A: a rotatable component with a singular rotational axis (Figs. 1-8B, 10A-10D, 12A-13D, 15A-16E, 18A-E)
Sub-Species B: a rotatable component with multiple rotational axis (Figs. 9A-D, 11A-D, 14A-E, 17A-D)
The species are independent or distinct because the different species have mutually exclusive characteristics for each identified species. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, There are no generic.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply: In particular, the different species contain distinct structural difference for the rotatable components; the rotatable components with multiple axis of rotation have multiple parts of different shapes that move in different directions to gain access to an air treatment chamber or premotor filter and the rotatable components with a singular axis of rotation have a singular part to gain access to an air treatment chamber. The structural elements for each species would have minimal overlap between one another in the field of search. The search for each species would require a narrow, text-based search through many classes/subclasses. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record. Performing individualized searches on each species would be overly burdensome on the examiner.
If applicant chooses Species 2, this application is directed towards the following distinct sub-species:
Sub-Species a: a motor located in the rotatable component (Figs. 19A-22B)
Sub-Species b: a motor located in the stationary component (Figs. 23A-26B)
The species are independent or distinct because the different species have mutually exclusive characteristics for each identified species. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, There are no generic.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply: In particular, the different species contain distinct structural difference for the location of the motors. The structural elements for each species would have minimal overlap between one another in the field of search. The search for each species would require a narrow, text-based search through many classes/subclasses. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record. Performing individualized searches on each species would be overly burdensome on the examiner.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
During a telephone conversation with Philip Mendes Da Costa (Reg. No 33,106) on 3 February, 2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Species 2, Sub-Species b, claims 12-20. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 1-11 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
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 yoke member 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.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the yoke member (Ref. No 153) as described in the specification ([0190]). Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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 Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 12 recites “the longitudinal axis” that should be “the central longitudinal axis”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites “the air flow path”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear to the examiner if applicant intends for the limitation to be a new structure or if applicant intends to refer to “an air flow passage”. For purpose of examination, examiner interprets the limitation as “the airflow passage” and as the same as “an airflow passage”.
Claim 12 recites “a suction motor” in both lines 5 and 9. It is unclear to the examiner if applicant intends for there to be two different suction motors or if they are the same. For purpose of examination, examiner interprets the limitation as the same suction motors.
Claim 12 recites “a front end” in both lines 1 and 6. It is unclear to the examiner if the applicant intends for the limitation to be the same or “a front end of the first stage air treatment chamber”. For purpose of examination, examiner interprets the limitation as “a front end of the first stage air treatment chamber”. Further, Claim 13 recites “a front end of the first stage air treatment chamber”. It is unclear to the examiner if applicant intends for there to be two different front ends of the first stage air treatment chamber or if applicant intends for the limitation to be the same. For purpose of examination, examiner interprets the limitation as the same and “the front end of the first stage air treatment chamber”.
Claim 13 recites “a front end of the first air treatment chamber”. It is unclear to the examiner if applicant intends for a new structure or if the limitation is the same as in claim 12. For purpose of examination, examiner interprets the limitation as “the front end of the first stage air treatment chamber” and the same as in claim 12.
Claims 14-20 are rejected due to being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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.
(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 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Conrad (2021/0386259).
Regarding Claim 12, Conrad teaches a hand vacuum cleaner (Ref. 100, Fig. 2) having a front end (Ref. 116, Fig. 2, [0228]) and a rear end (Ref. 118, Fig. 2, [0228]) and a central longitudinal axis (See Fig. 4 annotated below) extending between the front and rear ends (Fig. 4), the hand vacuum cleaner comprising:
(a) an air flow passage (Fig. 4, [0229]) extending from a dirty air inlet (Ref. 134, Fig. 4 ([0229]) to a clean air outlet (Ref. 136, Fig. 4, [0229]) wherein a first stage air treatment chamber (Ref. 146, Fig. 4, [0232]) and a suction motor (Ref. 138, Fig. 4, [0230]) are provided in the air flow passage (Fig. 4, [0230]), wherein the longitudinal axis extends between a front end (See Fig. 4 annotated below) and a rear end (See Fig. 4 annotated below) of the first stage air treatment chamber (Fig. 4);
(b) a stationary component (Ref. 124, Fig. 9) comprises a main body (Ref. 124, Fig. 4, [0228]), the main body houses a suction motor (138 Fig. 4&12) that is positioned in the air flow path (Fig. 4&12, [0230]), the main body having a pistol grip handle (Ref. 128, Fig. 2&13, [0266]) extending downwardly from a lower surface of the main body (Fig. 1&13, [0267] shows downward from the lower surface of the main body (124)); and,
(c) a rotatable component (Ref. 130, Fig. 9-12) rotatably mounted to the stationary component about a rotational axis (Ref. 216, [0262] describes rotating around the recess 216 to form a pivot) the rotatable component which comprises at least a portion of the first stage air treatment chamber (Fig. 12), is moveable between an in use position in which the air treatment chamber is closed (Fig. 4) and an emptying position in which the air treatment chamber is open (Fig. 8&11-12, [0262-0263] describes an operating position and open position).
PNG
media_image1.png
514
765
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 13, Conrad teaches the limitations of claim 12, as described above, and further teaches when the rotatable component is in the emptying position (Fig. 11-12), a front end of the first stage air treatment chamber (See Fig. 4 annotated above) is open (fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 14, Conrad teaches the limitations of claim 12, as described above, and further teaches wherein, when the rotatable component (130) is in the emptying position (Fig. 11-12), a front end of the rotatable component (Ref. 180, Fig. 12) is positioned below the central longitudinal axis and faces downwardly (Fig. 12 shows as least part the front end is below the central longitudinal axis and faces downward) and a rear end of the rotatable component (Ref. 176, Fig. 12) is positioned above the central longitudinal axis and faces upwardly (Fig. 12).
Regarding Claim 15, Conrad teaches the limitations of claim 12, as described above, and further teaches a second stage air treatment chamber (ref. 148, Fig. 4) and the rotational axis extends through the second stage air treatment chamber (Fig. 12).
Regarding Claim 16, Conrad teaches the limitations of claim 12, as described above, and further teaches a second stage air treatment chamber (Ref. 148, Fig. 4), the second stage air treatment chamber having a dirt collection region (Ref. 148, Fig. 4, [0232]), and the dirt collection region is also opened when the rotatable component is in the emptying position (Fig. 8&11-12).
Regarding Claim 17, Conrad teaches the limitations of claim 12, as described above, and further teaches wherein the handle is positioned rearward of the rotational axis (Fig. 11&12).
Regarding Claim 18, Conrad teaches the limitations of claim 17, as described above, and further teaches an energy storage member (Ref. 112, [0227] describes the power source maybe an energy storage member) positioned at a lower end of the handle (Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 19, Conrad teaches the limitations of claim 12, as described above, and further teaches wherein the stationary component further comprises a yoke member (Ref. 168, Fig. 2, [0241]) the rotatable component is rotatably mounted to the yoke member (fig. 11-12).
Regarding Claim 20, Conrad teaches the limitations of claim 17, as described above, and further teaches wherein the stationary component further comprises a yoke member (Ref. 168, Fig. 2, [0241]), the rotatable component is rotatably mounted to the yoke member (fig. 11-12).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Brown (2017/0196419), Tonderys (2019/0090701), Conrad (2020/0383544), Lawrence (2022/0151449), and Conrad (2019/0282049) teach a hand vacuum cleaner with a motor and air flow passage and can be considered analogous art because they are within the same field of endeavor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANA L POON whose telephone number is (571)272-6164. The examiner can normally be reached on General: 6:30AM-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, David Posigian can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANA LEE POON/Examiner, Art Unit 3723