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
Claims 4-7 are objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “air treatment member assembly” should be “air treatment assembly” (or vice versa) 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: “surface cleaning apparatus” in Claims 1-19, “air treatment member” in Claim 1, “air treatment member assembly” in Claims 4-7, “air treatment member air inlet” in Claims 4, 5, and 16, “air treatment member lock” in Claim 6, “air treatment member release actuator” in Claims 6 and 7, “air treatment member axis” in Claims 12 and 14, and “air treatment member air outlet” in Claim 16.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3, 14, and 15, and therefore dependent Claim 4, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitations "the dirt collection chamber has an opening" and “the air treatment member is removable in a direction”. Both these limitations are previously provided in Claim 2 implying that these are “a second opening” and “a second direction”. There is incorrect antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims resulting in a features that are not present in the invention. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indefinite.
Claims 14 and 15 recite the limitation "the handle portion". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims since a handle portion has not been previously claimed.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed 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, 2, 5, 8, 9, 11, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Henderson US 2020/0237170 (hereafter Henderson).
Regarding Claim 1, Henderson anticipates:
1. A surface cleaning apparatus (vacuum cleaner 10) comprises an air treatment assembly (canister assembly 30), the air treatment assembly comprises an air treatment member (separator 42) and a dirt collection chamber (dirt collection chamber 38) exterior to the air treatment member (shown in Figure 4), the air treatment assembly having first and second opposed ends (both ends labeled in attached Figure 7 below) and a sidewall (labeled in attached Figure 7 below) that extends between the first and second ends (shown in attached Figure 7 below), wherein the sidewall has an openable door (openable door 70) whereby the dirt collection chamber is opened when the door is opened (Paragraph [0029]), and the air treatment member is removably mounted in the first end of the air treatment assembly (shown in Figure 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
819
877
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Henderson anticipates:
2. The surface cleaning apparatus of claim 1 wherein, when the door (openable door 70) is opened, the dirt collection chamber (dirt collection chamber 38) has an opening that faces a first direction (labeled in attached Figure 7 above), and the air treatment member (separator 42) is removable in a direction (labeled in attached Figure 7 above) that is generally transverse to the first direction (shown in attached Figure 7 above).
Regarding Claim 5, Henderson anticipates:
5. The surface cleaning apparatus of claim 1 wherein the air treatment member (separator 42) is removably mountable (shown in Figure 4) in the first end (labeled in attached Figure 7 above) of the air treatment assembly (canister assembly 30), the air treatment member has an air treatment member air inlet (dirty air inlet 82) having an inlet port (vacuum inlet 26) and the inlet port is located axially from the first end (shown in attached Figure 7 above) of the air treatment member assembly and exterior to the air treatment member assembly (vacuum inlet 26 is exterior to the canister assembly 30).
Regarding Claim 8, Henderson anticipates:
8. The surface cleaning apparatus of claim 1 wherein the air treatment member (separator 42) has a dirt outlet (dirt outlet 94), and the dirt outlet faces the openable door (openable door 70)(shown in attached Figure 7 above).
Regarding Claim 9, Henderson anticipates:
9. The surface cleaning apparatus of claim 8 wherein the air treatment member (separator 42) has a sidewall (sidewall 74), and the dirt outlet (dirt outlet 94) is provided between the sidewall and an end wall (at second end 90) of the air treatment member (best shown in Figure 4).
Regarding Claim 11, Henderson anticipates:
11. The surface cleaning apparatus of claim 10 wherein the door (openable door 70) is generally planar (shown in attached Figure 7 above).
Regarding Claim 16, Henderson anticipates:
16. The surface cleaning apparatus of claim 1 wherein the air treatment member (separator 42) is removably mountable (shown in Figure 4) in the first end (labeled in attached Figure 7 above) of the air treatment assembly (canister assembly 30), the air treatment member has an air treatment member air inlet (dirty air inlet 82) and an air treatment member air outlet (air outlet 98), and the air treatment member air inlet and the air treatment member air outlet are each located at the first end of the air treatment assembly (shown in attached Figure 7 above).
Regarding Claim 17, Henderson anticipates:
17. The surface cleaning apparatus of claim 1 wherein the air treatment member (separator 42) comprises a cyclone (cyclonic chamber 78) having a cyclone axis of rotation (longitudinal axis 80) and the cyclone axis of rotation extends axially between the first and second ends (both ends labeled in attached Figure 7 above) of the air treatment assembly (canister assembly 30).
Regarding Claim 18, Henderson anticipates:
18. The surface cleaning apparatus of claim 17 wherein the cyclone (cyclonic chamber 78) is axially removable (as part of separator 42 as shown in Figure 4) from the air treatment assembly (canister assembly 30).
Regarding Claim 19, Henderson anticipates:
19. The surface cleaning apparatus of claim 18 wherein the cyclone (cyclonic chamber 78) is removable mountable (as part of separator 42 as shown in Figure 4) in the first end (labeled in attached Figure 7 above) of the air treatment assembly (canister assembly 30), the cyclone has a cyclone air inlet (entrance connected to dirty air inlet 82) and a cyclone air outlet (air outlet 98), and the cyclone air inlet and the cyclone air outlet are each located at the first end (shown in attached Figure 7 above) of the air treatment assembly (canister assembly 30).
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 3, 4, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henderson US 2020/0237170 (hereafter Henderson).
Regarding Claim 3, Henderson teaches:
3. The surface cleaning apparatus of claim 2 wherein, when the door (openable door 70) is opened, the dirt collection chamber (dirt collection chamber 38) has an opening that generally extends in a plane (labeled in attached Figure 7 above), and the air treatment member (separator 42) is removable in a direction that is generally parallel to the plane (generally parallel as shown in Figure 7 above).
Henderson discloses as best shown in Figure 7 that the door of the dirt collection chamber is oriented at an angle relative to the horizon. Henderson additional discloses the separator and the separator axis is oriented at angle relative to the horizon to bias the dirt outward through dirt outlet 94 using gravity. As shown in Figure 7, the angle of the door is slightly larger than the angle of the separator. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the angle of the door shown in Figure 7 is not critical but merely selected to create a funnel-like installation as shown in Figure 2. The Applicant discloses in Paragraph [0092] that the door may extend generally parallel to the air treatment member axis or the door may extend in a plane that is at an angle to the air treatment member axis. Therefore, 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 angle of the door to match the angle of the separator resulting in a generally parallel arrangement, maintaining the funnel-like installation since applicant has not disclosed that the door being generally parallel to the air treatment member solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with the door being at an angle or parallel to the air treatment member. Therefore, one would be motivated to modify the angle of the door on the Henderson device to match the angle of the air treatment member by mere personal preference which as show in Figure 7 could slightly increase the size of the dirt collection bin.
Regarding Claim 4, Henderson teaches:
4. The surface cleaning apparatus of claim 3 wherein the air treatment member (separator 42) is removably mountable (shown in Figure 4) in the first end (labeled in attached Figure 7 above) of the air treatment assembly (canister assembly 30), the air treatment member has an air treatment member air inlet (dirty air inlet 82) having an inlet port (vacuum inlet 26) and the inlet port is located axially from the first end (shown in attached Figure 7 above) of the air treatment member assembly and exterior to the air treatment member assembly (vacuum inlet 26 is exterior to the canister assembly 30).
Regarding Claim 12, Henderson teaches:
12. The surface cleaning apparatus of claim 5 wherein an air treatment member axis (longitudinal axis 80) extends between the first and second ends (labeled in attached Figure 7 above) of the air treatment assembly (canister assembly 30) and the door (openable door 70) extends in a plane (labeled in attached Figure 7 above) that is generally parallel to the air treatment member axis (generally parallel as shown in Figure 7 above).
Henderson discloses as best shown in Figure 7 that the door of the dirt collection chamber is oriented at an angle relative to the horizon. Henderson additional discloses the separator and the separator axis is oriented at angle relative to the horizon to bias the dirt outward through dirt outlet 94 using gravity. As shown in Figure 7, the angle of the door is slightly larger than the angle of the separator. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the angle of the door shown in Figure 7 is not critical but merely selected to create a funnel-like installation as shown in Figure 2. The Applicant discloses in Paragraph [0092] that the door may extend generally parallel to the air treatment member axis or the door may extend in a plane that is at an angle to the air treatment member axis. Therefore, 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 angle of the door to match the angle of the separator resulting in a generally parallel arrangement, maintaining the funnel-like installation since applicant has not disclosed that the door being generally parallel to the air treatment member solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with the door being at an angle or parallel to the air treatment member. Therefore, one would be motivated to modify the angle of the door on the Henderson device to match the angle of the air treatment member by mere personal preference which as show in Figure 7 could slightly increase the size of the dirt collection bin.
Claims 6, 7, 10, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henderson US 2020/0237170 (hereafter Henderson) in view of other embodiments.
Regarding Claim 6, Henderson teaches:
6. The surface cleaning apparatus of claim 1 further comprising an air treatment member lock (cavities of locking members 324 that receive protrusions on back wall 256), the air treatment member lock comprises an air treatment member release actuator (liftable features of locking members 324) and the air treatment member release actuator is located at the first end of the air treatment member assembly (canister assembly 30). (as discussed below, it would have been obvious to combine features of first embodiment with those taught by second embodiment, Figure 9).
Henderson discloses a first embodiment disclosed in Figures 2-7 used for most of the rejection. Henderson teaches a second embodiment disclosed in Figure 8-13 that details features that are missing from the first embodiment. For example, Figure 9 shows features for latching the air treatment member in its assembled position. Although these features are specifically arranged for a hinged configuration, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that it would be necessary to modify the first embodiment to include a releasable lock for securing the air treatment member to the air treatment assembly on the first end, where it is hidden until removed for emptying with the motivation to prevent accidental disassembly.
Regarding Claim 7, Henderson teaches:
7. The surface cleaning apparatus of claim 6 wherein the air treatment member release actuator (liftable features of locking members 324) is located axially from the first end (labeled in attached Figure 7 above) of the air treatment member assembly (canister assembly 30).
As previously presented in Claim 6, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that it would be necessary to modify the first embodiment to include a releasable lock for securing the air treatment member to the air treatment assembly on the first end, where it is hidden until removed for emptying with the motivation to prevent accidental disassembly. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a latch with a release actuator located offset from the first end, perhaps at the top near the second end, which prevents the separator from sliding rightward, as shown in Figure 7, with the motivation place the latch in a location that logically retains the separator in the stowed position.
Regarding Claim 10, Henderson teaches:
10. The surface cleaning apparatus of claim 1 wherein the first end (labeled in attached Figure 7 above) has an air treatment assembly air outlet (air outlet 98), the door (openable door 70) is moveably mounted by a mount (latch or hinge shown in Figure 9) between a closed position and an open position in which the dirt collection chamber (dirt collection chamber 38) is opened, and the mount is provided at the second end (labeled in attached Figure 7 above)(as discussed below, it would have been obvious to combine features of first embodiment with those taught by second embodiment, Figures 8 and 9).
Henderson discloses a first embodiment disclosed in Figures 2-7 used for most of the rejection. Henderson teaches a second embodiment disclosed in Figure 8-13 that details features that are missing from the first embodiment. For example, Figures 8 and 9 show features for a hinged opening or latching of the door in its assembled position. Although these features not specifically discussed, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that it would be necessary to modify the first embodiment to include a latch or hinge that allows the door to move between an opened and a secured closed position with the motivation to allow the door to open or close as intended for emptying dirt.
Regarding Claim 13, Henderson teaches:
13. The surface cleaning apparatus of claim 1 wherein the air treatment assembly (canister assembly 230) further comprises a handle (front ridge 258), the handle having a hand grip portion (shown in Figure 8) that faces and is spaced from a side (front wall 254) of the air treatment assembly that is opposed to the door (openable door 270). (as discussed below, it would have been obvious to combine features of first embodiment with those taught by second embodiment, Figure 8)
Henderson discloses a first embodiment disclosed in Figures 2-7 used for most of the rejection. Henderson teaches a second embodiment disclosed in Figure 8-13 that details features that are missing from the first embodiment. For example, Figure 8 shows a handle at the top and front of the air treatment assembly. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that it would be necessary to modify the first embodiment to include handle with the motivation to allow the user to more easily remove and carry the air treatment assembly for emptying dirt.
Regarding Claim 14, Henderson teaches:
14. The surface cleaning apparatus of claim 13 wherein an air treatment member axis (longitudinal axis 80/280) extends between the first and second ends (both ends labeled in attached Figure 7 above) of the air treatment assembly (canister assembly 30/230) and the handle portion has a handle axis that is generally parallel to the air treatment member axis (see discussion below).
Henderson teaches in Figure 1 a pistol grip handle portion of the device with an axis that appears to be generally parallel to the air treatment member axis. Henderson has elected to include the handle as part of the frame rather than being integral with the canister assembly. 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 device to move the handle to the canister assembly allowing the device to be lifted by the canister assembly. When released, the handle would conveniently serve opposite the opening to hold the canister assembly while orienting the door above a trash receptacle for emptying.
Regarding Claim 15, Henderson teaches:
15. The surface cleaning apparatus of claim 13 wherein the handle portion comprises a pistol grip handle (shown in Figure 1).
Henderson teaches in Figure 1 a pistol grip handle portion of the device with an axis that appears to be generally parallel to the air treatment member axis. Henderson has elected to include the handle as part of the frame rather than being integral with the canister assembly. 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 device to move the handle to the canister assembly allowing the device to be lifted by the canister assembly. When released, the handle would conveniently serve opposite the opening to hold the canister assembly while orienting the door above a trash receptacle for emptying.
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 specifically configured removable dirt bins.
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