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 .
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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3 March, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 43 recites the limitation “a battery secured to the power head such that the battery is transferable with the power head from the first canister to the second canister”. Claim 41, from which claim 43 depends, has been amended to recite the limitation “a battery secured to the power head such that the battery is transferable with the power head from the first canister to the second canister while secured to the power head”.
Because claim 43 appears to recite a broader version of the limitation of claim 41, it fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends and is rejected as being of improper dependent form. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 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.
Claims 21-26 and 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCambridge (US 4688293) in view of Richter (US 9854955).
21. McCambridge teaches a modular vacuum system comprising:
a first canister configured to store debris, the first canister having a first capacity and an open upper end (canister 12 is configured to store debris and has a first capacity and an open upper end, see McCambridge fig. 2 and 3:7-22);
a second canister configured to store debris, the second canister having a second capacity greater than the first capacity and an open upper end having a size and shape consistent with the open upper end of the first canister (combination of canister 12 and extensions 70 results in a larger capacity than just canister 12, see McCambridge fig. 1; upper part of extensions 70 have a configuration consistent with the upper end of canister 12 so that lid 16 still fits, see McCambridge fig. 1 and 4:27-54);
a first power head configured to be coupled to either the first canister at the open upper end or the second canister at the open upper end (lid 16 may be coupled to either configuration for the canister and may include a low capacity motor 40', see McCambridge 2:31-41, 3:26-33, and figs. 1-2), configured to generate a first suction airflow and configured to be coupled to the first canister such that the first canister receives the first suction airflow and the first canister stores debris separated from the first suction airflow, and the first power head configured to be coupled to the second canister such that the second canister receives the first suction airflow and the second canister stores debris separated from the first suction airflow (lid 16 is configured to generate an airflow passing through a chamber such that air flows in through inlet 62, around the chamber defined by canister 12 and however many extensions 70 may be present, and ultimately out an exhaust 61, see McCambridge fig. 5);
a second power head configured to be coupled to either the first canister at the open upper end or the second canister at the open upper end (lid 16 may be coupled to either configuration of the canister and may be configured to include a high capacity motor 40, see McCambridge 2:31-41, 3:26-33, and figs. 1-2), to generate a second suction airflow and configured to be coupled to the first canister such that the first canister receives the second suction airflow and the first canister stores debris separated from the second suction airflow and the second power head can be coupled to the second canister such that the second canister receives the second suction airflow and the second canister stores debris separated from the second suction airflow (lid 16 is configured to generate an airflow passing through a chamber such that air flows in through inlet 62, around the chamber defined by canister 12 and however many extensions 70 may be present, and ultimately out an exhaust 61, see McCambridge fig. 5).
McCambridge does not explicitly teach an embodiment including each of the first and second canisters and first and second power heads. However, McCambridge does teach that it is known in the art to stock a plurality of canisters and lid-based evacuating structures (McCambridge 1:13-30). It has been held that “in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” MPEP 2144.01, citing In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would understand McCambridge to be implicitly teaching the use of a system comprising multiple canisters of different capacity (due to the inclusion of extensions) and multiple power heads configured to operate at different power levels.
McCambridge also shows the power heads as including power cables (lids 16 have cables, see McCambridge figs. 1-3), which one of ordinary skill would understand to implicitly teach that the power heads are powered by an AC power input. McCambridge does not teach that the first power head is battery-powered or that it includes a battery secured to the first power head such that the battery is transferable from the first canister to the second canister while secured to the first power head.
However, Richter teaches a modular vacuum system (10, see Richter fig. 1), that includes first and second power heads (18 and 20) each configured to fit on a canister (16), wherein the power heads include a DC power head powered by batteries (20 has a battery-based power supply 22, see Richter fig. 1 and 5:56-6:8), and an AC power head (18, see Richter fig. 1 and 5:39-55), and wherein the battery is secured to the first power head such that the battery is transferable from the first canister to the second canister while secured to the first power head. (battery 22 is attached to power head 20 using cable 36 and would be capable of being moved between different canisters while attached to power head 20 via the cable, see Richter figs. 1 and 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings from Richter regarding a modular cleaning system having both AC and DC power heads with the system of McCambridge such that the resulting system included a first head powered by battery and including a battery secured to the first power head such that the battery is transferable from the first canister to the second canister while secured to the first power head, and a second head powered by AC, as different power sources are better for different cleaning applications and supplying AC and DC power configurations on a single product platform reduces costs associated with inventory (see Richter 7:10-39).
22. McCambridge as modified teaches the modular vacuum system of claim 21, but does not explicitly teach that the first power head is operable at a first voltage to generate the first suction airflow, and wherein the second power head operable at a second voltage, greater than the first voltage, to generate a second suction airflow (McCambridge teaches only that the power heads may include motors of different power levels, see McCambridge 2:31-39; while Richter teaches that the DC power head may include a 36 volt DC motor but is silent as to the operating voltage for the AC motor beyond that it "may have any suitable specifications", see Richter 5:49-6:6). However, as noted in the rejection of claim 21 above, it is proper to consider both the specific teachings of a reference and the inferences one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. MPEP § 2144.01. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably be expected to infer that in teaching AC motors configured to be plugged into standard power plugs, both Richter and McCambridge were teaching motors configured to operate at a standard mains voltage such as 110V-120V. Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to supply a first power head is operable at a first voltage to generate the first suction airflow, and a second power head operable at a second voltage, greater than the first voltage, to generate a second suction airflow, as doing so represents the combination of known prior art elements (Richter teaches a 36V DC motor and implicitly teaches a 110V-120V AC motor), according to known prior art methods and the results of such a combination would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill.
23. McCambridge as modified teaches the modular vacuum system of claim 22, wherein the first power head is battery powered at the first voltage but not the second voltage and the second power head is powered at the second voltage by the AC power input but not the first voltage (as noted in the rejection of claim 22 above, Richter teaches separate voltages for the battery powered and AC power heads, and the use of such would have been obvious. Therefore, the combination teaches claim 23).
24. McCambridge as modified teaches the modular vacuum system of claim 21, wherein the first canister has a first height and the second canister has a second height greater than the first height (canister height is changed by the inclusion of extensions 70, see McCambridge figs. 1-2).
25. McCambridge as modified teaches the modular vacuum system of claim 24, wherein the first canister includes a closed lower end, the first height measured from the open upper end of the first canister to the closed lower end of the first canister, wherein the second canister includes a closed lower end, the second height measured from the open upper end of the second canister to the closed lower end of the second canister (canister 12 has a lower end closed by wall 26, see McCambridge fig. 5; the only difference between the first and second canisters is that the second canisters are taller due to the inclusion of extensions 70, see McCambridge figs. 1-2 and 5).
26. McCambridge as modified teaches the modular vacuum system of claim 25, wherein the closed lower end of the first canister has a same size and shape as the closed lower end of the second canister (canister 12 has a lower end closed by wall 26, see McCambridge fig. 5; the only difference between the first and second canisters is that the second canisters are taller due to the inclusion of extensions 70, see McCambridge figs. 1-2 and 5).
30. McCambridge as modified teaches the modular vacuum system of claim 21, wherein the first capacity is in a range from 2 gallons to 6 gallons, wherein the second capacity is in the range from 7 gallons to 16 gallons (capacity of 6 gallons for the canister alone, with extensions capable of providing increased capacities of 9 or 12 gallons, see McCambridge 4:13-26).
31. McCambridge as modified teaches the modular vacuum system of claim 21, but does not explicitly disclose that the first power head includes a first motor operable at a first voltage to generate the first suction airflow, wherein the second power head includes a second motor operable at a second voltage to generate the second suction airflow.
However, as noted in the rejection of claim 21 above, it is proper to consider both the specific teachings of a reference and the inferences one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. MPEP § 2144.01. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably be expected to infer that in teaching AC motors configured to be plugged into standard power plugs, both Richter and McCambridge were teaching motors configured to operate at a standard mains voltage such as 110V-120V. Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to supply a first power head including a first motor operable at a first voltage to generate the first suction airflow, and a second power head including a second motor operable at a second voltage to generate the second suction airflow, as doing so represents the combination of known prior art elements (Richter teaches a 36V DC motor and implicitly teaches a 110V-120V AC motor), according to known prior art methods and the results of such a combination would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill.
Claims 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCambridge in view of Richter as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Hult et al. (US 6237187, "Hult").
27. McCambridge as modified teaches the modular vacuum system of claim 26, and further teaches that the base of the canister includes wheels (28, see McCambridge fig. 1), but does not teach the presence of a base defining a recess configured to separately and removably receive the closed lower end of the first canister and the closed lower end of the second canister, wherein the base includes a plurality of wheels.
However, Hult teaches a base (100) for a vacuum (10) defining a recess configured to separately and removably receive the closed lower end of the first canister and the closed lower end of the second canister (recess between arms receives base of drum 12, see Hult figs. 1 and 5-7), wherein the base includes a plurality of wheels (100 has front and back wheels, see Hult fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a base such as that taught by Holt with the vacuum system of McCambridge as modified, as doing so represents the simple substitution of one sort of means to provide wheels and portability for another, and the results of such a substitution would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill.
28. McCambridge as modified teaches the modular vacuum system of claim 27, wherein the first canister includes a sidewall extending between the closed lower end of the first canister and the open upper end of the first canister, wherein the second canister includes a sidewall extending between the closed lower end of the second canister and the open upper end of the second canister (each configuration for canister 12 includes sidewalls extending between the closed bottom and open upper ends, see McCambridge figs. 1-2); wherein the base is configured to surround at least a portion of the sidewall of the first canister when the base receives the closed lower end of the first canister (base 100 of Hult is configured to surround a lower portion of a sidewall of canister 12, see Hult fig. 1), and wherein the base is configured to surround at least a portion of the sidewall of the second canister when the base receives the closed lower end of the second canister (base 100 of Hult is configured to surround a lower portion of a sidewall of canister 12, see Hult fig. 1; as the lower portion of canister 12 from McCambridge as modified would not change in size across embodiments, the base of Hult would be capable of surrounding a lower portion of the sidewall of the canister in either configuration, see McCambridge figs. 1-2).
29. McCambridge as modified teaches the modular vacuum system of claim 28, wherein the base includes a cutout capable of being aligned with a drain port of a canister when the base receives the closed lower end of the second canister such that the base does not cover the drain port (Hult teaches a U-shaped cutout in the front of base 100 that is aligned with a drain port 24 such that it does not cover the drain port, see Hult fig. 1). McCambridge as modified does not specifically teach that the base of canister 12 includes a drain port in the second configuration.
However, Hult further teaches that a sidewall of a canister (12) may include a drain port aligned with the gap in the base (24 is in gap of base 100, see Hult figs. 1 and 11, and 1:18-33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a drain port such as that taught by Holt with the vacuum system of McCambridge as modified, as doing so would allow a user to remove a cap to drain liquid in the drum (see Hult 1:18-33).
Claims 39-40 and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCambridge in view of Richter, Grebing (US PGPub 2021/0274989), and Hult.
39. McCambridge teaches a modular vacuum system comprising:
a plurality of canisters, at least one canister in the plurality of canisters having a first capacity and at least another canister in the plurality of canisters having a second capacity different than the first capacity, wherein each canister of the plurality of canisters includes an open upper end and a closed lower end, wherein the closed lower end of each canister of the plurality of canisters has a same size and shape;
(a first configuration of only canister 12 is configured to store debris and has a first capacity and an open upper end, see McCambridge fig. 2 and 3:7-22; a second configuration of a combination of canister 12 and extensions 70 results in a larger capacity than just canister 12, see McCambridge fig. 1; upper part of extensions 70 have a configuration consistent with the upper end of canister 12 so that lid 16 still fits, see McCambridge fig. 1 and 4:27-54; both configurations include an open upper end and lower end closed by wall 26, see McCambridge fig. 5);
a plurality of power heads operable at different power levels (lid 16 may be coupled to either configuration for the canister and may include a high capacity motor 40 or a low capacity motor 40', see McCambridge 2:31-41, 3:26-33, and figs. 1-2), configured to generate a first suction airflow and configured to be coupled to the first canister such that the first canister receives the first suction airflow and the first canister stores debris separated from the first suction airflow, and the first power head configured to be coupled to the second canister such that the second canister receives the first suction airflow and the second canister stores debris separated from the first suction airflow (lid 16 is configured to generate an airflow passing through a chamber such that air flows in through inlet 62, around the chamber defined by canister 12 and however many extensions 70 may be present, and ultimately out an exhaust 61, see McCambridge fig. 5);
wherein each canister of the plurality of canisters can be selectively coupled to each power head of the plurality of power heads (either configuration of lid 16 may be coupled to either configuration for the canister, see McCambridge 2:31-41, 3:26-33, and figs. 1-2), and
wherein each power head of the plurality of power heads is configured to engage a ledge of each canister to secure the power head to the canister (latches 88 engage outwardly-extending lip 96, see McCambridge fig. 5 and 4:41-5:2).
McCambridge does not explicitly teach an embodiment including each of the first and second canisters and first and second power heads. However, McCambridge does teach that it is known in the art to stock a plurality of canisters and lid-based evacuating structures (McCambridge 1:13-30).
As noted in the rejection of claim 21 above, it is proper to consider both the specific teachings of a reference and the inferences one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. MPEP § 2144.01. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would understand McCambridge to be implicitly teaching the use of a system comprising multiple canisters of different capacity (due to the inclusion of extensions) and multiple power heads configured to operate at different power levels.
McCambridge also shows the power heads as including power cables (lids 16 have cables, see McCambridge figs. 1-3), which one of ordinary skill would understand to be implying that the power heads are powered by an AC power input at a voltage.
McCambridge does not explicitly teach that at least one power head of the plurality of power heads operable at a first voltage supplied by a battery power source, the voltage of the AC power input being different than the first voltage; wherein each power head of the plurality of power heads is configured to operate at the first voltage or the second voltage but not both the first voltage and the second voltage, or that the at least one power head of the plurality of power heads operable at a first voltage supplied by a battery power source includes a battery secured to the at least one power head such that the battery is transferable from the first canister to the second canister while secured to the first power head.
However, Richter teaches a modular vacuum system (10, see Richter fig. 1), that includes first and second power heads (18 and 20) each configured to fit on a canister (16), wherein the power heads include a DC power head powered by batteries (20 has a battery-based power supply 22, see Richter fig. 1 and 5:56-6:8)and wherein the battery is secured to a first power head such that the battery is transferable from the first canister to the second canister while secured to the first power head. (battery 22 is attached to power head 20 using cable 36 and would be capable of being moved between different canisters while attached to power head 20 via the cable, see Richter figs. 1 and 5), and an AC power head (18, see Richter fig. 1 and 5:39-55). Furthermore, McCambridge teaches that the power heads may include motors of different power levels (see McCambridge 2:31-39; while Richter teaches that the DC power head may include a 36 volt DC motor but is silent as to the operating voltage for the AC motor beyond that it "may have any suitable specifications", see Richter 5:49-6:6). However, as noted in the rejection of claim 21 above, it is proper to consider both the specific teachings of a reference and the inferences one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. MPEP § 2144.01. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably be expected to infer that, in teaching AC motors configured to be plugged into standard power plugs, both Richter and McCambridge were teaching motors configured to operate at a standard mains voltage such as 110V-120V.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings from Richter regarding a modular cleaning system having both AC and DC power heads with the system of McCambridge such that the resulting system included at least one power head of the plurality of power heads operable at a first voltage supplied by a battery power source, the battery power source including a battery secured to the at least one power head such that the battery is transferable from the first canister to the second canister while secured to the first power head, the voltage of the AC power input being different than the first voltage; wherein each power head of the plurality of power heads is configured to operate at the first voltage or the voltage of the AC power input but not both the first voltage and the voltage of the AC power input, as Richter teaches that different power sources are better for different cleaning applications and supplying one configuration for each of AC and DC power on a single product platform would reduce costs associated with inventory (see Richter 7:10-39).
McCambridge as modified also does not teach a base defining a recess configured to separately and removably receive the closed lower end of each canister of the plurality of canisters, wherein the base includes a plurality of wheels.
However, Hult teaches a base (100) for a vacuum (10) defining a recess configured to separately and removably receive the closed lower end of the first canister and the closed lower end of the second canister (recess between arms receives base of drum 12, see Hult figs. 1 and 5-7), wherein the base includes a plurality of wheels (100 has front and back wheels, see Hult fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a base such as that taught by Holt with the vacuum system of McCambridge as modified, as doing so represents the simple substitution of one sort of means to provide wheels and portability for another, and the results of such a substitution would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill.
Finally, McCambridge as modified does not teach that a central portion of a first sidewall of each canister of the plurality of canisters is inset relative to a remainder of the first sidewall from a ledge of the canister to a bottom side of the canister.
However, Grebing teaches an alternative shape for a canister configured to store vacuum debris having sidewalls (canister 202 has sidewalls 33 and 34, see Grebing figs. 12-13 and [0111]), wherein a central portion of a sidewall of the first canister is inset relative to the remainder of the sidewall from a ledge of the first canister to a bottom side of the first canister (sidewalls include central recesses 211 extending from latch attachment ledges 37 to a bottom side of the canisters, see Grebing figs. 12-13, [0116]-[0117] and [0121]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of McCambridge as modified to incorporate the teachings of Grebing regarding canister geometry such that a central portion of a first sidewall of each canister of the plurality of canisters is inset relative to a remainder of the first sidewall from a ledge of the canister to a bottom side of the canister, as doing so represents the simple substitution of one sort of canister geometry for another, and the results of such a substitution would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill.
40. McCambridge as modified teaches the modular vacuum system of claim 39, wherein each canister of the plurality of canisters includes a sidewall extending between the closed lower end and the open upper end (each configuration for canister 12 includes sidewalls extending between the bottom and upper end, see McCambridge figs. 1-2), wherein the base is configured to surround at least a portion of the sidewall of the canister received within the base (base 100 of Hult is configured to surround a lower portion of a sidewall of canister 12, see Hult fig. 1; as the lower portion of canister 12 from McCambridge does not change in size across embodiments, the base of Hult would be capable of surrounding a lower portion of the sidewall of the canister in either configuration, see McCambridge figs. 1-2).
47. McCambridge as modified teaches the modular vacuum system of claim 39, wherein each of the plurality of canisters include a left sidewall and a right sidewall opposite the left sidewall of the first canister, each of the first and second sidewalls extending between an upper edge and a lower edge of the respective canister; wherein each of the plurality of power heads includes a left sidewall and a right sidewall opposite the left sidewall of the first power head, wherein the left and right sidewalls of the plurality of power heads are substantially vertical, and wherein the left and right sidewalls of the plurality of canisters taper inwards from the upper edge to the lower edge of the respective canister.
Specifically, Grebing teaches an alternative canister geometry including tapered sidewalls (the geometry taught by Grebing includes sidewalls 33 and 34 extending between upper edge 27 and container bottom end 31 and tapering inward, see Grebing figs. 12-13), for use with a cleaning head (201) having a squared cross section and substantially vertical sidewalls (see Grebing fig. 19). Modifying the system of McCambridge as modified to incorporate the teachings from Grebing regarding canister geometry as described in the rejection of claim 39 would result in each of the plurality of canisters including a left sidewall and a right sidewall opposite the left sidewall of the first canister, each of the first and second sidewalls extending between an upper edge and a lower edge of the respective canister; each of the plurality of power heads including a left sidewall and a right sidewall opposite the left sidewall of the first power head, wherein the left and right sidewalls of the plurality of power heads are substantially vertical, and wherein the left and right sidewalls of the plurality of canisters taper inwards from the upper edge to the lower edge of the respective canister.
Claims 41 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lowder (US 4222145) in view of Holsten (US 9305727), Register et al. (US PGPub 2018/0078104, "Register"), Wulff (US 3930630), and Grebing.
41. Lowder teaches a modular vacuum system (10) comprising:
a base (30);
a first canister configured to store debris, the first canister having a first capacity, an open upper end, a bottom side, a front sidewall extending upward from the base, a rear sidewall opposite the front sidewall and extending upward from the base, a first side sidewall extending between the front sidewall and the rear sidewall and extending upward from the base, a second side sidewall extending between the front sidewall and the rear sidewall and extending upward from the base, and a ledge formed in the first side sidewall (tank 16 has a shape with four walls extending up from base 30 and a ledge 82, see Lowder figs. 1-4),
a second canister configured to store debris, the second canister having a second capacity less than the first capacity and an open upper end having a size and shape consistent with the open upper end of the first canister (16 is one of a family of tanks of different sizes, see Lowder 4:13-45);
a power head configured to be coupled to the first canister at the open upper end (suction head 18 is coupled to top of canister 16, see Lowder fig. 1 and 3:16-22)
a pair of wheels coupled to the first canister and extending above a height adjacent the rear sidewall of the first canister when the first canister is mounted to the base (wheels 42, see Lowder figs. 1-3), and
a handle having a first upward extending portion, a second upward extending portion, and a horizontal portion coupling the first upward extending portion to the second upward extending portion (handle 60 includes vertical portions 66 and horizontal portion 68, see Lowder fig. 3),
wherein the base defines a recess configured to receive the bottom side of the first canister such that the bottom side of the first canister is fastened to the base (recessed portion of base 30, see Lowder figs. 1-4 and 6);
wherein the power head is configured to be coupled to the first canister such that the first canister receives the first suction airflow and the first canister stores debris separated from the suction airflow, and the power head is configured to be coupled to the second canister such that the second canister receives the suction airflow and the second canister stores debris separated from the suction airflow (suction head 20 is usable with any of the different volumes of the family of collection tanks 16, see Lowder fig. 1 and 4:13-45);
wherein a corner between the rear sidewall and the first side sidewall and a corner between the rear sidewall and the second side sidewall are inset to provide additional clearance for the pair of wheels (corner 84 between sidewalls and rear is inset, see Lowder fig. 4).
Lowder does not teach that the power head is battery-powered to generate a suction airflow or that the power head includes a latch configured to engage the ledge of the first canister to secure the power head to the first canister and configured to engage the ledge of the second canister to secure the power head to the second canister.
However, Holsten teaches a power head (16) for a vacuum system (10), wherein the power head is battery powered and attached to a canister (22) by a set of latches that engage a ledge on the canister (see Holsten fig. 1a and 8:10-25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Lowder to incorporate the teachings from Holsten regarding the use of battery power and latches such that the modified system included a power head that was battery-powered to generate a suction airflow and a latch configured to engage the ledge of the first canister to secure the power head to the first canister and configured to engage the ledge of the second canister to secure the power head to the second canister, as doing so represents the simple substitution of one sort of power head and attachment mechanism for another, and the results of such a substitution would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill.
Lowder as modified does not teach a battery secured to the power head such that the battery is transferable with the power head from the first canister to the second canister while secured to the power head.
However, Register teaches a modular vacuum system including a power head (16) configured to be attached to a variety of canisters (12, 12', and 12'', see Register figs. 1-3 and [0020]) and including a battery (34) secured to the power head and transferable with the power head while secured to the power head (see Register figs. 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the system of Lowder as modified to incorporate the teachings of Register regarding battery-powered power heads for modular vacuum systems such that it included a battery secured to the power head such that the battery is transferable with the power head from the first canister to the second canister, as one of ordinary skill would recognize that doing so would allow the cleaner to be used in places without available AC power. Additionally, Register teaches that batteries are a known power source that may be used instead of a line to a wall outlet (Register [0017]), so using batteries instead of a power cable further represents the simple substitution of one kind of known power source for another, and the results of such a substitution would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill.
Lowder as modified does not teach that the handle is adjustable to decrease a height of the handle, wherein each of the first and second upward extending portions is located between the pair of wheels;
However, Wulff teaches a base (10) for use with a vacuum cleaner (12) and including a handle (combination of first and second upward extending portions 28 and pivoting element 24, see Wulf fig. 1) that is adjustable to decrease a height of the handle (compare positions for 24 in Wulff figs. 1 and 6), and wherein each of the first and second upward extending portions is located between a pair of wheels (upward-extending elements 28 are located between wheels 32, see Wulff figs. 2-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the system of Lowder as modified to incorporate the teachings of Wulff regarding the use of a pivotable handle in a vacuum system such that the handle of the modified system was adjustable to decrease a height of the handle, and each of the first and second upward extending portions was located between the pair of wheels, as doing so would reduce the force needed to empty the canister (Wulff 2:58-3:4).
Further, Lowder as modified does not teach that a central portion of the first sidewall of the first canister is inset relative to a remainder of the first sidewall from the ledge to the bottom side of the first canister and a central portion of a first sidewall of the second canister is inset relative to the remainder of the first sidewall from the ledge to a bottom side of the second canister.
However, Grebing teaches an alternative shape for a canister configured to store vacuum debris having sidewalls (canister 202 has sidewalls 33 and 34, see Grebing figs. 12-13 and [0111]), wherein a central portion of a sidewall of the first canister is inset relative to the remainder of the sidewall from a ledge of the first canister to a bottom side of the first canister (sidewalls include central recesses 211 extending from latch attachment ledges 37 to a bottom side of the canisters, see Grebing figs. 12-13, [0116]-[0117] and [0121]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the system of Lowder as modified to incorporate the teachings of Grebing regarding canister geometry such that a central portion of the first sidewall of the first canister is inset relative to a remainder of the first sidewall from the ledge to the bottom side of the first canister and a central portion of a first sidewall of the second canister is inset relative to the remainder of the first sidewall from the ledge to a bottom side of the second canister, as doing so represents the simple substitution of one sort of canister geometry for another, and the results of such a combination would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill.
Finally, Lowder as modified teaches rounded corners between the rear sidewall and the first and second sidewalls, and consequently does not specifically teach that the corners between the rear sidewall and the first and second side sidewalls are chamfered along a height of the first canister to form substantially planar surfaces between the rear sidewall and the first and second side sidewalls. However, it would nonetheless have been obvious for one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to make such a change, as it has been held that, absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant, the specific configuration was an obvious matter of design choice. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Applicant's disclosure does not provide any evidence that the particular distinction between flat and rounded corners has a significant impact on the function of the device. Simply replacing the rounded chamfer between the rear sidewall and a side sidewall of Lowder with a flat chamfer to create the claimed "substantially planar surfaces" represents no more than the sort of obvious design choice described in Dailey.
42. Lowder as modified teaches the modular vacuum system of claim 41, wherein the pair of wheels is coupled to the first canister via the base (wheels 42 are coupled to canister 16 via base 14, see Lowder figs. 1-3).
Claim 44 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCambridge in view of Richter as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Conrad (US 9192269).
44. McCambridge as modified teaches the modular vacuum system of claim 21, but does not explicitly teach the presence of a base defining a recess configured to separately and removably receive the first canister and the second canister, wherein the base includes a plurality of wheels, and wherein a release is configured to be depressed by a foot to unlock the first and second canisters from the base.
However, Conrad teaches a base (58) for a vacuum cleaner (10), the base defining a recess (cradle 62) configured to receive the vacuum cleaner (vacuum cleaner nestles in cradle 62, see Conrad figs. 3-6), and wherein the base includes a plurality of wheels (60, see Conrad fig. 5) and a release configured to be depressed by a foot to unlock the vacuum from the base (a foot pedal may actuate the release of vacuum 10 from base 58, see Conrad 11:51-63).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings from Conrad regarding a wheeled base for a vacuum cleaner with the system of McCambridge such that the system includes a base defining a recess configured to separately and removably receive the first canister and the second canister, wherein the base includes a plurality of wheels, and wherein a release is configured to be depressed by a foot to unlock the first and second canisters from the base, as doing so represents the simple substitution of one sort of mobility mechanism for another (replacing the casters 28 of McCambridge with the base of Conrad), and the results of such a substitution would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCambridge in view of Richter as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Grebing.
45. McCambridge as modified teaches the modular vacuum system of claim 21, but because McCambridge as modified teaches a cylindrical canister and power head, it does not teach that the first canister includes a left sidewall and a right sidewall opposite the left sidewall of the first canister, each of the left and right sidewalls of the first canister extending between an upper edge and a lower edge of the first canister;
wherein the second canister includes a left sidewall and a right sidewall opposite the left sidewall of the second canister, each of the first and second sidewalls of the second canister extending between an upper edge and a lower edge of the second canister;
wherein the first power head includes a left sidewall and a right sidewall opposite the left sidewall of the first power head;
wherein the second power head includes a left sidewall and a right sidewall opposite the left sidewall of the second power head;
wherein the left and right sidewalls of the first and second power heads are substantially vertical, and
wherein the left and right sidewalls of the first and second canisters taper inwards from the upper edge to the lower edge.
However, Grebing teaches the concept of using canisters (2) having a polygonal cross-section (see, e.g. Grebing fig. 7) for a particle collection system (including separator head 1, see Grebing fig. 7), wherein the container has tapered sidewalls and the separator has substantially vertical sidewalls (sides of separator head 1 are substantially vertical, see Grebing fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of McCambridge as modified to incorporate the teachings of Grebing regarding canister geometry such that the first canister included a left sidewall and a right sidewall opposite the left sidewall of the first canister, each of the left and right sidewalls of the first canister extending between an upper edge and a lower edge of the first canister; the second canister included a left sidewall and a right sidewall opposite the left sidewall of the second canister, each of the first and second sidewalls of the second canister extending between an upper edge and a lower edge of the second canister; the first power head included a left sidewall and a right sidewall opposite the left sidewall of the first power head;
the second power head included a left sidewall and a right sidewall opposite the left sidewall of the second power head; the left and right sidewalls of the first and second power heads were substantially vertical, and
the left and right sidewalls of the first and second canisters tapered inwards from the upper edge to the lower edge. as doing so represents the simple substitution of one sort of canister geometry for another, and the results of such a substitution would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill.
Claim 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCambridge in view of Richter, Grebing, and Hult as applied to claim 39 above, and further in view of Conrad.
46. McCambridge as modified teaches the modular vacuum system of claim 39, but does not teach it further comprises a release configured to be depressed by a foot to unlock the plurality of canisters from the base.
However, Conrad teaches a base (58) for a vacuum cleaner (10), the base defining a recess (cradle 62) configured to receive the vacuum cleaner (vacuum cleaner nestles in cradle 62, see Conrad figs. 3-6), and wherein the base includes a plurality of wheels (60, see Conrad fig. 5) and a release configured to be depressed by a foot to unlock the vacuum from the base (a foot pedal may actuate the release of vacuum 10 from base 58, see Conrad 11:51-63).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings from Conrad regarding a release for a wheeled base for a vacuum cleaner with the system of McCambridge such that the system included a release configured to be depressed by a foot to unlock the plurality of canisters from the base, as doing so represents the simple substitution of one sort of lock for another, and the results of such a substitution would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3 March, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the combinations relied on in the rejections above would not result in a battery being transferable with a power head while secured to the power head, examiner notes that the batteries of Richter would be movable with the power head while attached via the connecting cable, which falls within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “secured”. Furthermore, applicant is reminded that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). One of ordinary skill combining the teachings of Richter with the vacuum of McCambridge would not necessarily be limited to the specific structure and connection mechanism for a battery and power head taught by Richter, as “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007) “[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. Office personnel may also take into account “the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
For these reasons, the rejections of claims 21-31, 39-40, and 44-47 are maintained.
Regarding claims 41 and 42, claim 41 was amended to incorporate subject matter substantially similar to that in claim 43 and has been rejected on substantially similar grounds as was previously used to reject that claim, as Register teaches a structure whereby battery modules are inserted into power heads and the combinations are capable of being transferred between canisters as a single unit. Applicant has not offered any arguments regarding the combination with Register, so the rejections of claims 41 and 42 are likewise maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN R ZAWORSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7804. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-5:00, Fridays 9:00-1:00.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at (571)-272-4475. 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.
/JONATHAN R ZAWORSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights