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 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 1-5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by White et al. US 2011/0088210 (hereafter White et al.).
Regarding Claim 1, White et al. anticipates:
1. A vacuum cleaner comprising:
a floor nozzle (cleaner head 12);
a handle (handle 94);
a hand nozzle (wand assembly 82) stored at least partially in the handle (Figures 1 and 2a);
a backbone (main body 14 and support assembly 16) between the floor nozzle and the handle (Figure 1);
a motor (motor-driven fan unit 76) on the backbone (inside support assembly 16);
a dustcup (separating apparatus 100) on the backbone (Figure 1), the dustcup having an inlet (separating apparatus inlet duct 106);
a valve (changeover valve 110) between the floor nozzle and the inlet to the dustcup (shown in Figures 10a and 10b, Paragraph [0059]), the valve operable between an open position (shown in Figure 10b) and a closed position (shown in Figure 10a, Paragraph [0058]); and
air flow conduits defining a first air flow path (shown in Figure 10b, Paragraph [0059]) between the dustcup and the floor nozzle and a second air flow path (shown in Figure 10a, Paragraph [0058]) between the hand nozzle and the dustcup;
wherein when the valve is in the open position the first air flow path is open to the floor nozzle (shown in Figure 10b, Paragraph [0059]) and when the valve is in the closed position the first air flow path is closed to the floor nozzle (shown in Figure 10a, Paragraph [0058]).
Regarding Claim 2, White et al. anticipates:
2. The vacuum cleaner of claim 1, wherein the valve (changeover valve 110) is at or closely adjacent (best shown in Figure 10a) to a pivot (pivot about axis A as shown in Figure 10a) between the floor nozzle (cleaner head 12) and the backbone (main body 14 and support assembly 16).
Regarding Claim 3, White et al. anticipates:
3. The vacuum cleaner of claim 1, wherein the valve (changeover valve 110) is located closely adjacent to the inlet (separating apparatus inlet duct 106) to the dustcup (separating apparatus 100)(note that separating apparatus inlet duct 106 directly connects to inlet duct inlet section 108 as shown in Figure 10a).
Regarding Claim 4, White et al. anticipates:
4. The vacuum cleaner of claim 2, wherein, when the floor nozzle (cleaner head 12) is on a horizontal surface, orienting the backbone (main body 14 and support assembly 16) in an upright position (first angular position – upright Paragraph [0058]) closes the valve (changeover valve 110)(shown in Figure 10a, Paragraph [0058]) and orienting the backbone at a position (second angular position, Paragraph [0058] or retracted position, Paragraph [0100]) from 100° to 180° (15° to 65°, Paragraph [0094] which translates to 105° to 155°) relative to the horizontal surface opens the valve (shown in Figure 10b, Paragraph [0059]).
Regarding Claim 5, White et al. anticipates:
5. The vacuum cleaner of claim 4, wherein the valve (changeover valve 110) is fully open (shown in Figure 10b, Paragraph [0059]) when the backbone (main body 14 and support assembly 16) is oriented at a position second angular position, Paragraph [0058] or retracted position, Paragraph [0100]) from 110° to 180° (15° to 65°, Paragraph [0094] which translates to 105° to 155° using measurement consistent with the Applicant’s) relative to the horizontal surface.
Regarding Claim 13, White et al. anticipates:
13. The vacuum cleaner of claim 1, wherein the air flow conduits include a flexible conduit (flexible hose 88) between (fluidically between) the dustcup (separating apparatus 100) and the hand nozzle (wand assembly 82).
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 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White et al. US 2011/0088210 (hereafter White et al.) in view of Ni CN 104161485 A (hereafter Ni).
Regarding Claim 19, White et al. teaches:
19. The vacuum cleaner of claim 1, wherein the vacuum cleaner is powered by one or more batteries (see discussion below).
White et al. discloses in Figure 1 an upright vacuum cleaner that includes a power cord winding hooks, therefore, White et al. does not disclose that the vacuum cleaner is powered by one or more batteries. The reference Ni discloses an upright vacuum cleaner that is powered by a battery pack 3 detachably mounted to machine body 4. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the White et al. device to be powered by one or more batteries mounted to the main body 14 as taught by Ni with the motivation to eliminate dependance on an AC power cord and mount the battery on the main structure where it is secured yet the weight remains close to the ground to reduce the burden on the operator.
Regarding Claim 20, the combined White et al. in view of Ni device teaches:
20. The vacuum cleaner of claim 19, wherein, during use, the one or more batteries (Ni – battery pack 3) are retained on the backbone (White et al.: main body 14 and support assembly 16, Ni: machine body 4)(Ni: Figure 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-12 and 14-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but it would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 with airflow valves.
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