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 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: “floor nozzle apparatus” in Claims 1-28, “duct device” in Claims 1, 6-8, 10-13, 16, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, and 28, “one device” in Claim 10, “coarse-dirt guiding-away device” in Claims 11, 12, 14, 15, and 18, “suction cleaning device” in Claims 28-31, “suction fan device” in Claim 28, “carpet-brush suction cleaning device” in Claim 29, “upright device” in Claim 30, and “self-steering cleaning device” in Claim 31.
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.
Claim 4 is 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 4 recites the limitation "takes the form of a slit having a width in the direction of width that is at least three times larger". In this case, the claim does not specifically state what the width is compared to - “three times larger” than what? Therefore, the scope of this claim is unclear.
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 1-11, 14-19, and 23-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang CN 109953689 A (hereafter Wang) Figure 6 embodiment in view of other embodiments teaching missing structural features.
Regarding Claim 1, Wang teaches:
1. A floor nozzle apparatus (cleaning head 100), comprising
a receiving chamber (roller brush cavity 200) having a receiving space (suction opening from floor into roller brush cavity 200) that is open to a floor side (best shown in Figure 4);
at least one cleaning roller (brush roller 600) that is arranged in the receiving space and is rotatable about an axis of rotation (best shown in Figure 4); and
a suction connector (connecting bell mouth 410) on which a suction stream acts during operation of the floor nozzle apparatus;
wherein there is arranged between the receiving space and the suction connector a funnel- shaped duct device (strip-shaped groove 210) which opens into the receiving space by way of an orifice (transition between roller brush cavity 200 and strip-shaped groove 210) and which is connected to the suction connector or comprises the suction connector (“connected to” shown in Figure 6); and
wherein the orifice has a width (left-to-right dimension of strip-shaped groove 210 shown in Figure 6), in a direction of width parallel to the axis of rotation, that has at least one of the following:
- the width of the orifice is at least 30% of a width of the receiving space in the direction of width (shown in Figure 6);
- the width of the orifice is at least twice a width of an opening (opening of connecting bell mouth 410 shown in Figure 6) in the suction connector in the direction of width (shown in Figure 6).
Wang discloses multiple embodiments, however, he does not repeat shared structural elements for each. Therefore, although the rejections focus on the embodiment shown in Figure 6, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine shared structural elements from other embodiments that are consistent with the embodiment shown in Figure 6 with the motivation to form a complete cleaning head that includes a receiving chamber, cleaning roller, etc.
Regarding Claim 2, Wang teaches:
2. The floor nozzle apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the width (left-to-right dimension of strip-shaped groove 210 shown in Figure 6) of the orifice (transition between roller brush cavity 200 and strip-shaped groove 210) extends over at least 50% of the width of the receiving space (roller brush cavity 200)(shown in Figure 6).
Regarding Claim 3, Wang teaches:
3. The floor nozzle apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein a maximum height (up-to-down dimension of strip-shaped groove 210 shown in Figure 6) of the orifice (transition between roller brush cavity 200 and strip-shaped groove 210) in a direction of height transverse to the direction of width (left-to-right dimension of strip-shaped groove 210 shown in Figure 6) is smaller than a height of the opening in the suction connector (connecting bell mouth 410) in the direction of height (shown in Figure 6).
Regarding Claim 4, Wang teaches:
4. The floor nozzle apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the orifice (transition between roller brush cavity 200 and strip-shaped groove 210) takes the form of a slit having a width (left-to-right dimension of strip-shaped groove 210 shown in Figure 6) in the direction of width that is at least three times larger.
Regarding Claim 5, Wang teaches:
5. The floor nozzle apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the opening (opening of connecting bell mouth 410 shown in Figure 6) in the suction connector (connecting bell mouth 410) has a round or oval shape (round as shown in Figure 6).
Regarding Claim 6, Wang teaches:
6. The floor nozzle apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein a cross-sectional width (measured left-to-right dimension of strip-shaped groove 210 shown in Figure 6) of the duct device (strip-shaped groove 210) between lateral duct walls (walls shown in Figure 3) in the direction of width remains constant or decreases in size (both shown in Figure 3) from the orifice (transition between roller brush cavity 200 and strip-shaped groove 210) toward the opening (opening of connecting bell mouth 410 shown in Figure 6) in the suction connector (connecting bell mouth 410).
Regarding Claim 7, Wang teaches:
7. The floor nozzle apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein a cross-sectional height (measured up-to-down dimension of strip-shaped groove 210 shown in Figure 6) of the duct device (strip-shaped groove 210) between an upper duct wall and a lower duct wall (walls shown in Figure 6) in a direction of height transverse to the direction of width (left-to-right dimension of strip-shaped groove 210 shown in Figure 6) increases from the orifice (transition between roller brush cavity 200 and strip-shaped groove 210) toward the opening (opening of connecting bell mouth 410 shown in Figure 6) in the suction connector (connecting bell mouth 410), wherein the lower duct wall faces the floor side and the upper duct wall is opposed to the lower duct wall (shown in Figure 6).
Regarding Claim 8, Wang teaches:
8. The floor nozzle apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein a spacing between the duct device (strip-shaped groove 210) and the floor side increases from the orifice (transition between roller brush cavity 200 and strip-shaped groove 210) toward the suction connector (connecting bell mouth 410)(as shown in Figure 6 the bottom of the connecting bell mouth 410 is higher than the bottommost wall of the strip-shaped groove 210 resulting in the claimed spacing increase).
Regarding Claim 9, Wang teaches:
9. The floor nozzle apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the orifice (transition between roller brush cavity 200 and strip-shaped groove 210) is at a spacing from an underside of a body of the floor nozzle apparatus (cleaning head 100), on which the receiving chamber (roller brush cavity 200) is arranged.
Regarding Claim 10, Wang teaches:
10. The floor nozzle apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the duct device (strip-shaped groove 210) has at least one device for guiding away coarse dirt (first side channel 710), leading into the receiving space (suction opening from floor into roller brush cavity 200)(best shown in Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 11, Wang teaches:
11. The floor nozzle apparatus as claimed in claim 10, wherein at least one of the following applies:
- a height of the duct device at the at least one coarse-dirt guiding-away device in a direction of height transverse to the direction of width is greater than a height of the duct device outside the at least one coarse-dirt guiding-away device (not selected);
- a height of the orifice at the at least one coarse-dirt guiding-away device is in the range between 5 mm and 30 mm (not selected);
- in relation to the direction of width, the at least one coarse-dirt guiding-away device is arranged between a lateral outer end of the duct device and a center plane that is oriented perpendicular to the direction of width (not selected);
- at least two and in particular exactly two coarse-dirt guiding-away devices (first side channel 710 and second side channel 720) are provided;
- coarse-dirt guiding-away devices (first side channel 710 and second side channel 720) are arranged symmetrically in relation to a center plane that lies perpendicular to the direction of width (best shown in Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 14, Wang teaches:
14. The floor nozzle apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the orifice (transition between roller brush cavity 200 and strip-shaped groove 210) has an underside that faces the floor side and an upper side that is opposite the underside (shown in Figure 6), with at least one of the following:
- the underside has a substantially rectilinear course (shown in Figures 6 and 3);
- the upper side has a course that deviates from the rectilinear course, with at least one of i) steps and ii) bulges (not selected);
- a spacing between the underside and the upper side is in the range between 2 mm and 30 mm (not selected);
- a spacing between the underside and the upper side lies in the range between 2 mm and 15 mm outside any coarse-dirt guiding-away device present (not selected).
Regarding Claim 15, Wang teaches:
15. The floor nozzle apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein a height (up-to-down dimension of strip-shaped groove 210 shown in Figure 6) of the orifice (transition between roller brush cavity 200 and strip-shaped groove 210) in a direction of height transverse to the direction of width lies in the range between 2 mm and 30 mm (see discussion below), and lies in the range between 2 mm and 15 mm outside a coarse-dirt guiding-away device, if there is one (Examiner elects to not identify one – therefore this limitation does not apply).
Wang does not disclose a value for the height of the orifice as cited, therefore Wang does not disclose a value of 2mm to 30mm. It is common knowledge in the prior art devices, that the connecting bell mouth would be about 45mm at the most to transition to a large 50mm hose. Therefore, using Figure 6, it appears that the height would be roughly 22mm at most, which is within the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to size the height of the orifice within 2mm to 30mm since the range covers sizes that would considered a “strip-shaped groove” as described by Wang, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 16, Wang teaches:
16. The floor nozzle apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the duct device (strip-shaped groove 210) has at the orifice (transition between roller brush cavity 200 and strip-shaped groove 210), relative to the direction of width (left-to-right dimension of strip-shaped groove 210 shown in Figure 6), a first region (leftmost or rightmost region of strip-shaped groove 210 shown in Figure 6) that is delimited by a lateral outer duct wall (shown in Figure 6), and a second region (centermost region of strip-shaped groove 210 shown in Figure 6) that adjoins the first region, wherein the first region has a smaller height than the second region (shown in Figure 6).
Regarding Claim 17, Wang teaches:
17. The floor nozzle apparatus as claimed in claim 16, wherein the height (up-to-down dimension of strip-shaped groove 210 shown in Figure 6) of the first region (leftmost or rightmost region of strip-shaped groove 210 shown in Figure 6) is in the range between 2 mm and 8 mm (see discussion below).
Wang discloses substantially all the limitations of the claim except for providing a value for the cited first region shown in Figure 6. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to size the strip shaped groove in the range between 2mm and 8mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 18, Wang teaches:
18. The floor nozzle apparatus as claimed in claim 16, wherein the height (up-to-down dimension of strip-shaped groove 210 shown in Figure 6) of the second region (centermost region of strip-shaped groove 210 shown in Figure 6) lies in the range between 5 mm and 30 mm (see discussion below) and lies in the range between 5 mm and 15 mm outside a coarse-dirt guiding-away device, if there is one (Examiner elects to not identify one – therefore this limitation does not apply).
Wang does not disclose a value for the height of the second region as cited, therefore Wang does not disclose a value of 5mm to 30mm. It is common knowledge in the prior art devices, that the connecting bell mouth would be about 45mm at the most to transition to a large 50mm hose. Therefore, using Figure 6, it appears that the height would be roughly 22mm at most, which is within the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to size the height of the orifice within 2mm to 30mm since the range covers sizes that would considered a “strip-shaped groove” as described by Wang, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 19, Wang teaches:
19. The floor nozzle apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein a width (measured left-to-right dimension of suction opening from floor into roller brush cavity 200 shown in Figure 1) of the receiving space (suction opening from floor into roller brush cavity 200) in the direction of width (left-to-right dimension of strip-shaped groove 210 shown in Figure 6) is at least 400 mm (see discussion below).
Wang does not disclose a dimension for the width of the suction opening sized to match the size of the brush roller 600. It is common knowledge in the prior art that agitator brushes range in length from 12-24 inches for upright vacuum cleaners. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to size the suction opening to match the length of a roller brush ranging from anywhere between 300 to 600 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 23, Wang teaches:
23. The floor nozzle apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the duct device (strip-shaped groove 210) is arranged above a sliding soleplate (bottommost surface shown in Figure 6), relative to the floor side (shown in Figure 6).
Regarding Claim 24, Wang teaches:
24. The floor nozzle apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein a drive motor (driving unit 1010) for the at least one cleaning roller (brush roller 600) is arranged on a body (shown in Figures 1, 4, and 8) of the floor nozzle apparatus (cleaning head 100), and wherein the drive motor is positioned between the suction connector (connecting bell mouth 410) and the orifice (transition between roller brush cavity 200 and strip-shaped groove 210) of the duct device (strip-shaped groove 210).
Wang discloses the location of driving unit 1010 in Figure 8. Wang disclose the funnel transition in Figures 2 and 3. Wang does not provide a drawing that shows the driving unit and the funnel transition. After comparing the figures, it appears that at least a portion of the driving unit is located between the cited suction connector and orifice. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to relocate at least a portion of the driving unit, if necessary, to fit in the space adjacent to the funnel transition that is between the claimed suction connector and orifice with the motivation to fit the parts in as small of space as possible, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding Claim 25, Wang teaches:
25. The floor nozzle apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one cleaning roller (brush roller 600) is a brush roller (brush roller) or a textile roller.
Regarding Claim 26, Wang teaches:
26. The floor nozzle apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the duct device (strip-shaped groove 210) is formed in one piece (see discussion below).
Wang discloses a strip-shaped groove 210 in Figure 6 that appears to be a single piece, however, Wang does not specifically disclose that the strip-shaped groove 210 is formed by a single piece. If the strip-shaped groove 210 were formed with multiple pieces, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the multiple pieces into a single part, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two or more pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
Regarding Claim 27, Wang teaches:
27. The floor nozzle apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein, during a cleaning operation of the floor nozzle apparatus (cleaning head 100), the at least one cleaning roller (brush roller 600) rotates and a suction stream acts on the suction connector (connecting bell mouth 410).
Regarding Claim 28, Wang teaches:
28. A suction cleaning device (vacuum cleaner – multiple types disclosed), comprising a suction fan device (undisclosed element that is necessary to create the disclosed suction flow) and a floor nozzle apparatus (cleaning head 100), said floor nozzle apparatus comprising
a receiving chamber (roller brush cavity 200) having a receiving space (suction opening from floor into roller brush cavity 200) that is open to a floor side (best shown in Figure 4);
at least one cleaning roller (brush roller 600) that is arranged in the receiving space and is rotatable about an axis of rotation (best shown in Figure 4); and
a suction connector (connecting bell mouth 410) on which a suction stream acts during operation of the floor nozzle apparatus;
wherein there is arranged between the receiving space and the suction connector a funnel- shaped duct device (strip-shaped groove 210) which opens into the receiving space by way of an orifice (transition between roller brush cavity 200 and strip-shaped groove 210) and which is connected to the suction connector or comprises the suction connector (“connected to” shown in Figure 6); and
wherein the orifice has a width (left-to-right dimension of strip-shaped groove 210 shown in Figure 6), in a direction of width parallel to the axis of rotation, that has at least one of the following:
- the width of the orifice is at least 30% of a width of the receiving space in the direction of width (shown in Figure 6);
- the width of the orifice is at least twice a width of an opening (opening of connecting bell mouth 410 shown in Figure 6) in the suction connector in the direction of width (shown in Figure 6); and
wherein the suction fan device is fluidically connected to the suction connector (best shown in Figure 4 to create suction air flow).
Regarding Claim 29, Wang teaches:
29. The suction cleaning device as claimed in claim 28, wherein said suction cleaning device (vacuum cleaner – multiple types disclosed) takes the form of a carpet-brush suction cleaning device (shown in Figure 4).
Regarding Claim 30, Wang teaches:
30. The suction cleaning device as claimed in claim 28, wherein said suction cleaning device (vacuum cleaner – multiple types disclosed) takes the form of an upright device that is operable by a user who is standing up (upright vacuum cleaner disclosed).
Regarding Claim 31, Wang teaches:
31. The suction cleaning device as claimed in claim 28, wherein said suction cleaning device (vacuum cleaner – multiple types disclosed) takes the form of a self-propelling and self-steering cleaning device (robot vacuum cleaner disclosed).
Claims 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang CN 109953689 A (hereafter Wang) Figure 6 embodiment in view of other embodiments teaching missing structural features as previously presented in Claim 1, in further view of Stoy et al. US 2009/0320234 (hereafter Stoy et al.).
Regarding Claim 20, Wang teaches:
20. The floor nozzle apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein at least one flow-diversion region (see discussion below) is arranged or formed in the duct device (strip-shaped groove 210).
Wang discloses a funnel-shaped duct device (strip-shaped groove 210) as shown in Figure 6. Wang does not disclose a flow-diversion region in the duct device. The reference Stoy et al. discloses a funnel-shaped duct device. Stoy et al. discloses that the air flow distribution inside funnel-shaped duct shown in Figure 4 is not uniform with the intake flow velocity lower at the far left and right sides. Stoy et al. solves the problem with a configuration shown in Figures 22-30 that incorporates a droplet-shaped internal airfoil 98 that as best shown in Figure 30 creates a high uniform flow velocity across the entire length of the intake. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the strip-shaped groove 210 taught by Wang to include a droplet-shaped internal airfoil as taught by Stoy et al. with the motivation to improve the collection of debris by creating a more uniform intake flow velocity across the entire width of the duct device.
Regarding Claim 21, Wang teaches:
21. The floor nozzle apparatus as claimed in claim 20, wherein at least one of the following applies:
- the at least one flow-diversion region (Stoy et al. - droplet-shaped internal airfoil 98) is formed by way of a recess in the duct device (best shown in Stoy et al. Figure 23);
- the at least one flow-diversion region (Stoy et al. - droplet-shaped internal airfoil 98) is at a spacing from the orifice (best shown in Stoy et al. Figure 23);
- the at least one flow-diversion region (Stoy et al. - droplet-shaped internal airfoil 98) is at a spacing from the suction connector (best shown in Stoy et al. Figure 23);
- the at least one flow-diversion region (Stoy et al. - droplet-shaped internal airfoil 98) lies on a center plane (best shown in Stoy et al. Figure 23);
- the at least one flow-diversion region (Stoy et al. - droplet-shaped internal airfoil 98) is symmetrical or asymmetrical relative to a center plane of the duct device, wherein the center plane is at least one of i) oriented, ii) arranged and iii) formed perpendicular to the direction of width (best shown in Stoy et al. Figure 23);
- the at least one flow-diversion region has a geometric center point, and an extent of the at least one flow-diversion region away from the center point and perpendicular to the direction of width, wherein this extent is greater than a width of the at least one flow-diversion region parallel to the direction of width at the geometric center point (not selected);
- a cross-sectional surface of the at least one flow-diversion region, which forms a barrier face for flow, is at most 90% of a total cross section of the duct device including the at least one flow-diversion region (not selected);
- the at least one flow-diversion region has no edges or is provided with edges (not selected);
- the at least one flow-diversion region (Stoy et al. - droplet-shaped internal airfoil 98) is in the shape of an egg or droplet (best shown in Stoy et al. Figure 23).
Regarding Claim 22, Wang teaches:
22. The floor nozzle apparatus as claimed in claim 20, wherein a drag coefficient (droplet-shaped internal airfoil 98 will have a drag coefficient typically 0.04-0.06 based on common knowledge for that shape) for the at least one flow-diversion region (Stoy et al. - droplet-shaped internal airfoil 98) is less than or equal to 3 with a Reynolds number of 2,300 (the Reynolds number is calculated based on fluid density, velocity, kinematic or dynamic viscosity and characteristic length – see discussion below).
Neither Wang or Stoy et al. disclose a Reynolds number for their devices. It is common knowledge that the Reynolds number is calculated using a number of variables that can be arbitrarily changed to achieve a desired result. In this case, it is common knowledge that a Reynolds number of 2300 is a critical point where fluid transitions from laminar (below 2300) toward turbulent flow at 4000. As shown in Stoy et al. Figure 30, the flow velocity is uniform (appears to be laminar across the intake where the presence of the internal airfoil 98 introduces a discontinuity that causes the air velocities to change, which obviously creates a transition from laminar flow to a more turbulent flow. Therefore, although a Reynolds number is not taught by Stoy et al., 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 size the characteristic length and velocity in the device to create a Reynolds number of 2300 where the airfoil introduces a small amount of turbulence to the laminar flow to improve the flow transition into a circular bell mouth.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 13 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 shaped nozzle transitions.
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