The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office Action on the merits.
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgement is made to the amendment received April 17, 2026, amending Claims 1, 9, and 20. Claims 5, 6, and 12 were cancelled. New Claims 21-23 were added.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “waster container” is misspelled. It should be “waste container” for accuracy. Appropriate correction is required.
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”, “step”, or a generic placeholder 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: “handheld vacuum device” in Claims 1-8 and 20, “latch device” in Claims 1-3 and 5, “hook member” in Claim 4, “latch member” in Claim 5, “flap member” in Claims 9, 11, 12, and 20, “first ring member” in Claims 11 and 14, “second ring member” in Claims 11 and 14, “vacuum device” in Claims 9, 17, and 20, and “vacuum device kit” in Claim 20.
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 § 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
As necessitated by amendment, Claims 1-4, 7-11, and 13-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pudwill et al. GB 2233218A (hereafter Pudwill et al.) in view of design choice.
Regarding Amended Claim 1, Pudwill et al. teaches:
1. A handheld vacuum device (suction device 10), comprising
a) a head portion (housing 14);
b) an interface (engage end 15 sized and shaped for interfacing nozzle 50) for a waste container (nozzle 50) to detachably connect thereto; the interface configured on a front end of the head portion (Figure 3); and
c) a gripping portion (handle 12) connected to the head portion (Figure 3);
wherein the head portion is configured with a single latch device (catches 40) that is adapted to lock the waste container to the head portion (shown in Figure 7), and to unlock and facilitate a drop of the waste container from the head portion by a user using one finger to operate the single latch device which results in an automatic drop of the waster container from the handheld vacuum device (“The nozzle 50 may be released from the suction device 10 by depressing catches 40 in the directions of arrow E” – see discussion below).
Pudwill et al. discloses a nozzle 50 with a circumferential lip 60 that is secured by two spring loaded catches 40, as shown in Figure 7, that are operated by a user to automatically drop the nozzle from the device. Although not disclosed, Figure 7 shows an arrangement that appears to allow the release of the nozzle by only depressing one button. This would be further expected if the device included a sinusoidal annular spring washer that would cause the spring-release of the nozzle as disclosed on Page 8, Lines 19-22. It would have been obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simplify user operation and reduce the number of parts during assembly by replacing one of the spring located catches with a fixed hook integrally formed, with a geometry similar to beveled leading edge 46, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893). This obvious modification would result on only a single spring loaded catch 40 as claimed that when combined with the sinusoidal annular spring washer that would cause the spring-release of the nozzle would allow user to use only one finger to release the nozzle as claimed.
Regarding Claim 2, Pudwill et al. teaches:
2. The handheld vacuum device of claim 1, wherein the latch device (catches 40) further comprises a button (pressing surface of catch assembly, shown in Figure 7) movably mounted on the head portion (housing 14); the button adapted to be operated by the user with a finger to unlock the waste container from the head portion (shown in Figure 7).
Regarding Claim 3, Pudwill et al. teaches:
3. The handheld vacuum device of claim 2, wherein the latch device (catches 40) further comprises a lever (pivotable catch shown in Figure 7) hinged to the head portion (housing 14) between two ends of the lever; one of the two ends formed as or coupled with the button which is adapted to be pressed by the user (provided with pressing surface and spring 44, Figure 7); the other one of the two ends formed as or coupled with a hook member (part annular projections 42 with bevelled leading edge 46) that is adapted to grip a protruded rim (circumferential lip 60, Figures 4 and 5) of the waste container (“The catches are each provided with part-annular projections 42 which clip behind lip 60 to hold nozzle 50 in place”).
Regarding Claim 4, Pudwill et al. teaches:
4. The handheld vacuum device of claim 1, wherein the interface (engage end 15 sized and shaped for interfacing nozzle 50) further comprises a circumferentially extending sidewall (vertically extending lip of engage end 15 below bevelled leading edge 46 as shown in Figure 7) at the front end of the head portion (housing 14) that delimits an opening (opening between bevelled leading edge 46 and lip on engage end 15 of housing 14 as shown in Figure 7); the opening facing an insertion direction of the waste container and adapted to receive at least a part of the waste container (receives circumferential lip 60 as shown in Figure 7).
Regarding Claim 7, Pudwill et al. teaches:
7. The handheld vacuum device of claim 1, further comprises a plurality of battery cells (five or six batteries 24) received within the gripping portion; the gripping portion defining a longitudinal direction where the plurality of battery cells is aligned in an end-to-end manner along the longitudinal direction.
Pudwill et al. discloses the use of five or six batteries with a preference toward rechargeable NiCad cells. Pudwill et al. discloses in Figure 2 an arrangement to be a circular bundle of cells that fit into the circular shape of the housing 14. Since the illustrated design includes rechargeable batteries, the arrangement is not configured to for a simplified replacement of batteries by a user. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Pudwill et al. device to employ primary batteries in lieu of rechargeable batteries. That being said, it would have been obvious to arrange the batteries aligned in an end-to-end manner along the longitudinal direction in a manner similar to prior art flashlights with the motivation to provide a commonly known user interface, without significantly changing the overall shape of the device.
Regarding Claim 8, Pudwill et al. teaches:
8. The handheld vacuum device of claim 4, wherein the circumferentially extending sidewall (vertically extending lip of engage end 15 below bevelled leading edge 46 as shown in Figure 7) has a length in the range of 2-3 mm in the insertion direction.
Pudwill et al. discloses in Figure 7 a vertically extending lip that has a thickness extending in the insertion direction. Pudwill et al. does not provide a dimension for the thickness. It would have been obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to size the thickness consistent with the wall thickness of the part and with a thickness that provides the necessary structural strength, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Amended Claim 9, Pudwill et al. teaches:
9. A waste container (nozzle 50) for a vacuum device (suction device 10), comprising:
a) a container body (hollow frusto-conical casing 51);
b) a filter (air-porous excrement retention bag 52) within the container body (Figure 5); and
c) a flap member (closure flap 58) secured to a first end (left side in Figure 5) of the container body; the flap member defining an inlet for air and waste; wherein the flap member has a disk shape (best shown in Figure 4) that defines the circumferential edge of the flap member (“closure flap 58 formed of resilient plastics material is connected to the member 56 over a limited circumferential arc (e.g. 300)”), and comprises independent movable flap pieces (may be in the form of a slotted cruciform resilient membrane, Page 4, Lines 14-21) which together close a round gap; the flap pieces adapted to deflate inward under suction force (As taught on Page 8, Lines 23-28 “the resulting suction force will draw air through nozzle 50, opening flap 58 and causing the excrement to be sucked into bag 52 – the physics of fluid dynamics teaches deflection inward will happen due to drag forces on flap pieces formed by suction airflow (sufficient for the device to draw debris into the nozzle 50) through the slotted cruciform opening with the disclosed structure) and open a gap for air and waste to pass through the flap member (As taught on Page 8, Lines 23-28 “the resulting suction force will draw air through nozzle 50, opening flap 58 and causing the excrement to be sucked into bag 52 – the physics of fluid dynamics teaches deflection inward will cause at least a small gap or opening in the cruciform slot will be formed for air and waste due to drag forces on flap pieces formed by suction airflow (sufficient for the device to draw debris into the nozzle 50) through the slotted cruciform opening);
wherein the container body further comprises a second end (open end 59) which is adapted to be connected and locked to (with circumferential lip 60) an interface (engage end 15 sized and shaped for interfacing nozzle 50) of the vacuum device (shown in Figure 7).
Regarding Claim 10, Pudwill et al. teaches:
10. The waste container of claim 9, wherein the filter (air-porous excrement retention bag 52) is coupled to the container body (hollow frusto-conical casing 51) at the first end (left side in Figure 5) of the container body.
Regarding Claim 11, Pudwill et al. teaches:
11. The waste container of claim 10, wherein the first end (left side in Figure 5) of the container body (hollow frusto-conical casing 51) has a circular shape (shown in Figure 4); the waste container (nozzle 50) further comprising a first ring member (member 56) and a second ring member (opening 57) which are adapted to be fastened to the first end of the container body; the first ring member and the second ring member further adapted to clamp a circumferential edge of the flap member (closure flap 58) and a circumferential edge of the filter (air-porous excrement retention bag 52)(shown in Figure 5).
Regarding Claim 13, Pudwill et al. teaches:
13. The waste container of claim 11, wherein the filter (air-porous excrement retention bag 52) has a shape substantially corresponding to that of the container body (hollow frusto-conical casing 51)(shown in Figure 5); the filter having a protruded rim (rim that secures to member 56 as shown in Figure 5) which defines the circumferential edge of the filter (shown in Figure 5).
Regarding Claim 14, Pudwill et al. teaches:
14. The waste container of claim 11, wherein the first ring member (member 56) and the second ring member (opening 57) are adapted to be fastened to the first end (left side in Figure 5) of the container body (hollow frusto-conical casing 51) by frictional fit (see discussion below).
Pudwill et al. discloses in Figure 5 a member 56 and opening 57 fastened to the left side of the hollow frusto-conical casing 51. Pudwill et al. does not disclose the method of securing the pieces. The claim limitation “by frictional fit” is a “product by process” limitation. Therefore, the limitation is constrained by the final structure and not to the process in creating the final structure. As a result, Pudwill et al. teaches the claim limitation since the final structure is taught.
Regarding Claim 15, Pudwill et al. teaches:
15. The waste container of claim 10, wherein a first end (left side in Figure 5) of the filter (air-porous excrement retention bag 52) is welded to the first end of the container body (hollow frusto-conical casing 51).
Pudwill et al. discloses in Figure 5 an air-porous excrement retention bag 52 fastened to the left side of the hollow frusto-conical casing 51. Pudwill et al. does not disclose the method of securing the pieces. The claim limitation “is welded” is a “product by process” limitation. Therefore, the limitation is constrained by the final structure and not to the process in creating the final structure. As a result, Pudwill et al. teaches the claim limitation since the final structure is taught.
Regarding Claim 16, Pudwill et al. teaches:
16. The waste container of claim 9, wherein the container body (hollow frusto-conical casing 51) has a truncated cone shape (shown in Figure 4) with an opening on each of the first (left side in Figure 5) and second (open end 59) ends; the waste container (nozzle 50) being stackable on another similar waste container with the truncated cone shape (“the nozzle is adapted to be nestable with similar nozzles”).
Regarding Claim 17, Pudwill et al. teaches:
17. The waste container of claim 9, wherein the second end (open end 59) of the container body (hollow frusto-conical casing 51) is formed with a protruded rim (with circumferential lip 60) by which the waste container (nozzle 50) is adapted to be connected and locked to (with catches 40) the interface (engage end 15 sized and shaped for interfacing nozzle 50) of the vacuum device (suction device 10).
Regarding Claim 18, Pudwill et al. teaches:
18. The waste container of claim 9, wherein the container body (hollow frusto-conical casing 51) is made of a biodegradable material.
Pudwill et al. discloses a disposable “nozzle may be made of plastics material such as polystyrene or polypropylene or may be made of other suitable materials such as, for example, laminated paper or cardboard. The material of the bag may be, for example, cloth or filter paper. Preferably the material of the bag is treated e.g. with a silicone to render its surface hydrophobic whilst still permitting air to pass therethrough”. Therefore, Pudwill et al. discloses substantially all the limitations of the claim(s) except for identifying the materials as being biodegradable. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Pudwill device to be made of a biodegradable material with the motivation to cause it to more efficiently breakdown in a landfill, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Regarding Claim 19, Pudwill et al. teaches:
19. The waste container of claim 9, wherein the first end of the container body (hollow frusto-conical casing 51) has an inlet with a diameter in the range of 10mm to 60mm.
Pudwill et al. discloses in Figure 5 a hollow frusto-conical casing 51 with an inlet diameter. Pudwill et al. does not provide a dimension for the diameter. It would have been obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to size the opening to appropriately fit the intended collection material, such as in this case 10mm to 60mm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Amended Claim 20, Pudwill et al. teaches:
20. A vacuum device kit comprising a handheld vacuum device (suction device 10) according to claim 1, and a waste container (nozzle 50), comprising:
a) a container body (hollow frusto-conical casing 51);
b) a filter (air-porous excrement retention bag 52) within the container body (Figure 5); and
c) a flap member (closure flap 58) secured to a first end (left side in Figure 5) of the container body; the flap member defining an inlet for air and waste (shown in Figure 5);
wherein the container body further comprises a second end (open end 59) which is adapted to be connected and locked to (with circumferential lip 60) an interface (engage end 15 sized and shaped for interfacing nozzle 50) of the handheld vacuum device (shown in Figure 7).
Regarding New Claim 21, Pudwill et al. teaches:
21. (New) The handheld vacuum device of claim 4, wherein the interface (engage end 15 sized and shaped for interfacing nozzle 50) further comprises a stop member (obvious design choice modification by replacing one of the spring located catches with a fixed hook integrally formed, with a geometry similar to beveled leading edge 46, as discussed in Claim 1) immovably located at the circumferentially extending sidewall (integral version of beveled leading edge 46 as shown in Figure 7); the stop member adapted to grip the waste container together with a hook (beveled leading edge 46) of the latch device (catches 40).
Regarding New Claim 22, Pudwill et al. teaches:
22. (New) The handheld vacuum device of claim 21, wherein the stop member (obvious design choice modification by replacing one of the spring located catches with a fixed hook integrally formed, with a geometry similar to beveled leading edge 46, as discussed in Claim 1) is located at an opposite side of the hook (beveled leading edge 46) about a center of the circumferentially extending sidewall (vertically extending lip of engage end 15 below bevelled leading edge 46 as shown in Figure 7)(shown in Figure 2).
Regarding New Claim 23, Pudwill et al. teaches:
23. (New) The waste container of claim 9, wherein the filter (air-porous excrement retention bag 52) has a protruded rim (circumferential lip 60) which defines the circumferential edge of the filter (Figures 4 and 5); the rim includes two notches (see discussion and zoomed in Figure 5 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
316
648
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Pudwill et al. teaches a notch as labeled in Figure 5 above, formed in the circumferential lip 60. As designed, the notch extends the entire perimeter of the nozzle 50, however, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the notch as a plurality of discrete notches extending intermittently around the perimeter of the nozzle with the motivation to remove material however leave some portions thicker (like ribs) to maintain the structural strength.
Response to Arguments
Clam Objection
The Examiner has reviewed the Applicant’s amendments and found them satisfactory. Therefore, the examiner withdraws the previous Claim Objection of Claim 9. However, a new Claim Objection of Claim 1 was added due to a misspelling.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)
Applicant’s arguments with amendments, filed April 17, 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection(s) of Claims 1-6, 9-13, 16, 17, and 20 under Pudwill et al. GB 2233218A have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, as necessitated by amendment, new 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s) of 1-4, 7-11, and 13-23 under Pudwill et al. GB 2233218A have been added.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s arguments with amendments, filed April 17, 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s) of Claims 7, 8, 14, 15, 18, and 19 under Pudwill et al. GB 2233218A have been fully considered and are not persuasive. However, as necessitated by amendment, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been modified to reflect the current claim language.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments, additional details have been added to the rejections to further explain the obviousness.
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 extension fee 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 MARC CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 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, BRIAN KELLER can be reached on (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.
/MARC CARLSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights