Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention I (claims 1-9) in the reply filed on 05/04/2026 is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
The action is in reply to the Application filed on 09/29/2023. Claims 1-9 and 21-25 are currently pending. Claims 10-20 are cancelled by applicant. Claims 1-9 and 21-25 are being examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/03/2023 has been received and considered by the examiner.
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:
“an alignment feature that properly aligns the air/liquid separator assembly within the recovery tank” in claim 1, lines 18-19;
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 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:
“a float assembly configured to close an inlet of the air conduit” in claim 1, line 14 and corresponding to the structural element 138 which includes a float shutter 146 and a float body 148 provided on the float shutter for selectively raising the float shutter to a closed position in which the float shutter closes an air inlet port of the riser tube as described in paragraphs 0037. This limitation shall be constructed to cover the structure described in the specification and equivalents thereof;
“a sealing assembly that seals the air/liquid separator assembly to a lower surface of the recovery tank” in claim 2, lines 2-3 and corresponding to the structural element 136 which includes a gasket 140 on the lower end of the riser tube which mates with the liquid and suction ports when the recovery tank is mounted to the recovery tank receiver, and a backflow preventer in the form of a duckbill valve 142 which prevents the escape of fluid drawn into the air/liquid separator assembly from the recovery tank as described in paragraphs 0036. This limitation shall be constructed to cover the structure described in the specification and equivalents thereof;
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-9 and 21-25 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lenkiewicz (US Patent No. 7,073,226) in view of Vander Baan (US Patent No. 7,140,068).
Regarding claim 1, Lenkiewicz discloses: a surface cleaning apparatus (Figures 1-8 and see also col. 3, ll. 28-30) for cleaning a surface (Applicant is reminded, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (See MPEP 2114 (II)), comprising:
a recovery tank (element 232) having a bottom wall (see figure 6 annotated below Detail A) defining an opening (see figure 6 annotated below Detail B) into an interior (interior cavity of element 104) of the recovery tank;
an extraction nozzle (elements 400/410) in fluid communication with the recovery tank (see figures 4-5 and see also col. 5, ll. 66-67 – col. 6, ll. 1-11);
a motor/fan assembly (elements 116/118 and see also col. 7, ll. 6-8) in fluid communication with the extraction nozzle and the recovery tank to generate a working airflow to transport debris-containing fluid including air and liquid from the extraction nozzle into the recovery tank (see figures 6-7 and see also col. 7, ll. 35-52);
an air/liquid separator assembly (element 200) for separating liquid from air in the debris-containing fluid (see col. 4, ll. 62-67 – col. 5, ll. 1-9) and comprising:
a liquid conduit (element 372) defining an inlet pipe (see figure 6 showing the liquid conduit (element 372) defining “an inlet pipe”) that is in fluid communication with the extraction nozzle (see col. 5, ll. 1-5);
an air conduit (element 374) defining an outlet pipe (see figure 6 showing the air conduit (element 374) defining “an outlet pipe”) that is in fluid communication with the recovery tank (see col. 5, ll. 5-9); and
a float assembly (element 218) configured to close an inlet (element 204) of the air conduit (see col. 5, ll. 33-34), wherein the liquid conduit, the air conduit, and the float assembly are integrally connected (see figure 6 showing element 372 (liquid conduit), element 374 (air conduit), element 218 (float assembly) integrally connected when assembled together) to and removable from the recovery tank as a single integral unit (See figure 8 showing the float assembly (element 218) having an internal guide slot (element 224) which operably connects with a guide rib (element 302) of the air/liquid separator assembly (element 200) which also comprises both the liquid conduit (element 372) and air conduit (element 374), thus forming a single integral unit when assembled apart from the recovery tank. Therefore, giving that the prior art discloses the liquid conduit (element 372), air conduit (element 374), and float assembly (element 218) being formed as the single integral unit when assembled apart from the recovery tank (element 232) and giving that there is no additional structure or structural difference, thus the prior art would necessarily be capable of having the liquid conduit, the air conduit, and the float assembly be removable from the recovery tank as a single integral unit, as recited.).
PNG
media_image1.png
907
782
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, Lenkiewicz shows the air/liquid separator assembly (element 200) further includes a base (element 212) being operably coupled to a portion of the bottom wall of the recovery tank (see figure 6 annotated above) However, Lenkiewicz does not explicitly disclose a mechanical coupling removably coupling the air/liquid separator assembly to the bottom wall of the recovery tank, the mechanical coupling including an alignment feature that properly aligns the air/liquid separator assembly within the recovery tank.
Vander Baan is also concern in providing a surface cleaning apparatus (Figures 1-8 and see also col. 3, ll. 35-40) comprising a tank (element 230) having a wall (see figure 2 annotated below Detail A) and an assembly (elements 214/220/221/222). Vander Baan further teaches a mechanical coupling (see col. 5, ll. 13-24 where the prior art discloses element 230 (tank) is mounted to a portion (element 221) of the assembly through “a bayonet twist and lock connection” which comprises a pair radially tabs (element 268) on the outer surface of element 230 and a pair of corresponding slots (element 224) formed in the lower edge of element 221) removably coupling the assembly to the bottom wall of the tank (see col. 4, ll. 5-8 and ll. 60-62), the mechanical coupling including an alignment feature that properly aligns the air/liquid separator assembly within the recovery tank (see figure 3A showing both the tank (230) and portion (element 221) of the assembly interlocked via the bayonet twist and lock connection and showing features that properly aligns the assembly with the tank).
PNG
media_image2.png
860
650
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have modified Lenkiewicz with the teaches of Vander Baan to provide a mechanical coupling removably coupling the assembly to the wall of the recovery tank, the mechanical coupling including an alignment feature that properly aligns the assembly within the tank. The resultant combination would have the mechanical coupling of element 268 of the tank (element 230) as disclosed by Vander Baan now on the inner surface wall below the bottom wall (see figure 6 annotated above Detail A) of the recovery tank (element 232) of Lenkiewicz and the mechanical coupling of element 224 of the assembly as disclosed by Vander Baan now on outer surface of the base (element 212) surface below the bottom wall of Lenkiewicz. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that providing a known removable connection means between the air/liquid separator assembly and recovery tank would necessarily provide the predictable result of appropriately securing both components to each other in order to prevent the apparatus from disassembling during operations while also allowing the user to operably remove said components from each other, thus allowing the user to interchange damaged parts instead of having to replace the entire device which would necessarily reduce cost. Therefore, giving that the Lenkiewicz modified discloses the same surface cleaning apparatus as recited, one of ordinary skill would find it obvious that the surface cleaning apparatus would necessarily have the mechanical coupling removably coupling the air/liquid separator assembly to the bottom wall of the recovery tank, the mechanical coupling including an alignment feature that properly aligns the air/liquid separator assembly within the recovery tank, as recited.
Regarding claim 2, Lenkiewicz modified discloses: the surface cleaning apparatus of claim 1, wherein the air/liquid separator assembly includes a sealing assembly (element 214) that seals the air/liquid separator assembly to a lower surface of the recovery tank (see figure 6).
Regarding claim 3, Lenkiewicz modified discloses: the surface cleaning apparatus of claim 1, wherein the air/liquid separator assembly is configured to be rotated into secure engagement with the recovery tank (See rejection of claim 1 above, where the prior art of Lenkiewicz as modified, shows the air/liquid separator assembly (element 200) further includes a base (element 212) being operably coupled to a portion of the bottom wall of the recovery tank (see figure 6 annotated above) which now comprises the mechanical couplings (elements 224/268) of prior art Vander Baan in order to provide a twist and lock connection (see col. 5, ll. 13-24 of Vander Baan). Therefore, giving that prior art modified discloses the secure engagement (via mechanical coupling) between the air/liquid separator assembly and recovery tank, and there is no additional structure or structural difference, thus the prior art would necessarily be capable of having the air/liquid separator assembly is configured to be rotated into secure engagement with the recovery tank, as recited.).
Regarding claim 4, Lenkiewicz modified discloses: the surface cleaning apparatus of claim 1, wherein the liquid conduit includes an outlet (element 202) that faces away from the inlet of the air conduit (see figure 6).
Regarding claim 5, Lenkiewicz modified discloses: the surface cleaning apparatus of claim 1, wherein the recovery tank includes a fill aperture (opening of element 238) proximate an upper portion (see figure 6 annotated above Detail A) thereof.
PNG
media_image3.png
560
632
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Lenkiewicz modified discloses: the surface cleaning apparatus of claim 1, wherein the opening defined in the bottom wall of the recovery tank is surrounded by a circumferential neck (see figure 6 annotated below Detail A)).
PNG
media_image4.png
907
965
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Lenkiewicz modified discloses: the surface cleaning apparatus of claim 6, wherein the circumferential neck is configured to rotatingly engage a rim (see figure 6 annotated below Detail B) that secures the air/liquid separator assembly with the recovery tank (See rejection of claim 1 above, where the prior art of Lenkiewicz as modified, shows the air/liquid separator assembly (element 200) further includes a base (element 212) being operably coupled to a portion of the bottom wall of the recovery tank (see figure 6 annotated above) which now comprises the mechanical couplings (elements 224/268) of prior art Vander Baan in order to provide a twist and lock connection (see col. 5, ll. 13-24 of Vander Baan) on both the inner surface wall below the bottom wall and outer surface of the base (element 212) surface below the bottom wall. Therefore, giving that prior art modified discloses the secure engagement (via mechanical coupling) between the air/liquid separator assembly and recovery tank, and there is no additional structure or structural difference, thus the prior art would necessarily be capable of having the circumferential neck is configured to rotatingly engage a rim that secures the air/liquid separator assembly with the recovery tank, as recited.).
PNG
media_image5.png
907
965
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Lenkiewicz modified discloses: the surface cleaning apparatus of claim 1, wherein the float assembly is juxtaposed closer to the motor/fan assembly than the air conduit (see figure 6 showing a portion (element 230) of the float assembly (element 218) being juxtaposed closer to the motor/fan assembly (elements 116/118) than the air conduit (element 374)).
Regarding claim 9, Lenkiewicz modified discloses: the surface cleaning apparatus of claim 1, wherein the air conduit is disposed between the liquid conduit and the float assembly (see figure 6 showing the air conduit (element 374) being disposed between the liquid conduit (element 372) and a portion (element 230) of the float assembly (element 218)).
Regarding claim 21, Lenkiewicz modified discloses: the surface cleaning apparatus of claim 4, further comprising: a base housing (elements 108/110), wherein the inlet of the air conduit is spaced a first distance (see figure 6 annotated below Detail A) from the base housing and the outlet of the liquid conduit is spaced a second distance (see figure 6 annotated below Detail B) from the base housing, and wherein the first distance is greater than the second distance (see figure 6 annotated below).
PNG
media_image6.png
580
949
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 22, Lenkiewicz modified discloses: the surface cleaning apparatus of claim 1, wherein the inlet of the air conduit faces the motor/fan assembly (see figure 6 showing portions of the inlet (element 204) of the air conduit (element 374) facing portions of the motor/fan assembly (elements 116/118)).
Regarding claim 23, Lenkiewicz modified discloses: the surface cleaning apparatus of claim 1, wherein the air/liquid separator assembly includes a base plate (element 212) that abuts the bottom wall of the recovery tank (see figure 6 annotated above on page 10, showing portions of the base plate (element 212) operably abutting portions of the bottom wall (Detail A) of the recovery tank (element 232)).
Regarding claim 24, Lenkiewicz modified discloses: the surface cleaning apparatus of claim 1, wherein the air/liquid separator assembly includes a riser tube (element 370) for guiding air and liquid through the recovery tank (see figure 6 and see also col. 4, ll. 64-67).
Regarding claim 25, Lenkiewicz modified discloses: the surface cleaning apparatus of claim 24, further comprising: a gasket (element 214) disposed between the riser tube and the recovery tank (see figure 6).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALBERTO SAENZ whose telephone number is (313)446-6610. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30PM 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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights