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
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “A handheld vacuum device, comprising” is missing a colon. It should be “A handheld vacuum device, comprising:” for accuracy. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “vacuum device” should be “handheld vacuum device” to be consistent with its use throughout the remaining claims. 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 § 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.
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.
Claims 1-6, 9-13, 16, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pudwill et al. GB 2233218A (hereafter Pudwill et al.).
Regarding Claim 1, Pudwill et al. anticipates:
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 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's one hand operation on the latch device (“The nozzle 50 may be released from the suction device 10 by depressing catches 40 in the directions of arrow E”).
Regarding Claim 2, Pudwill et al. anticipates:
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. anticipates:
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. anticipates:
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 5, Pudwill et al. anticipates:
5. The handheld vacuum device of claim 4, wherein the latch device (catches 40) further comprises a latch member (part annular projections 42 with bevelled leading edge 46) that is movable at least partially into the opening (opening between bevelled leading edge 46 and lip on engage end 15 of housing 14 as shown in Figure 7) to secure the waste container (nozzle 50) once installed to the handheld vacuum device (suction device 10).
Regarding Claim 6, Pudwill et al. anticipates:
6. The handheld vacuum device of claim 1, further comprises a worklight (lamp 36) installed at the head portion (housing 14)(shown in Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 9, Pudwill et al. anticipates:
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 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. anticipates:
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. anticipates:
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 12, Pudwill et al. anticipates:
12. The waste container of claim 11, wherein the flap member (closure flap 58) 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)”).
Regarding Claim 13, Pudwill et al. anticipates:
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 16, Pudwill et al. anticipates:
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. anticipates:
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 20, Pudwill et al. anticipates:
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 vacuum device (shown in Figure 7).
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.
Claims 7, 8, 14, 15, 18, and 19 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 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 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 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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in form PTO-892 Notice of References Cited. Specifically, the prior art references include pertinent disclosures of vacuum cleaners particularly equipped for animal feces.
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