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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-9, in the reply filed on June 27, 2025 and Applicant’s election without traverse of Species C1 in the reply filed on October 6, 2025 are acknowledged.
Claims 5-8, 10 and 11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the replies filed on June 27, 2025 and October 6, 2025.
Claims 1-4 and 9 will be examined on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2013/0008468 to Bertram et al. in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2015/0000069 to Conrad et al.
As to claim 1, Bertram discloses a vacuum cleaner comprising: a motor driven suction unit (see Bertram paragraph [0015] disclosing a motor driven fan); a device for collecting dust (see Bertram paragraph [0015] disclosing a cyclone separator); a suction channel (see Bertram paragraph [0015] disclosing a flow path from the pick-up device 4 and the cyclone separator 5); a nozzle fluidically communicating with the vacuum cleaner through the suction channel (see Bertram paragraph [0015] disclosing a flow path from the pick-up device 4 and the cyclone separator 5); an intake device having a by-pass channel, said intake device fluidically communicating with said suction unit, being configured for ensuring feeding of an additional portion of air into said suction channel, and configured to be adjusted between an opened state and a closed state for opening and closing said by-pass channel (see Bertram Figs. 1-3, ref.#7; paragraphs [0016]-[0018]); a control unit configured to control said suction unit, said control unit having a processor (see Bertram paragraph [0016] disclosing device control unit 8 with a control line 81 to the suction unit 2 and where it is understood or reasonably expected that the processor is capable of storing, calculating and interpreting signals or data); said intake device being bi-directionally electrically connected to said control unit for enabling transmission of data or signals between said intake device and said control unit (see Bertram paragraphs [0011]-[0012] and [0016]-[0020] disclosing that the intake device and sensor can be connected to the control unit and where the sensor can be considered as part of the intake device (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) where rearrangement of parts is prima facie obvious)); and said control unit being configured to generate a signal for controlling said intake device upon detecting the cleaning start signal or the cleaning end signal (see Bertram paragraphs [0011]-[0014] and [0016]-[0019] disclosing operation of the valve via the control unit based on switching on of the fan).
While Bertram discloses a vacuum cleaner that operates by switching on (see Bertram Abstract, paragraphs [0014] and [0019]), Bertram does not explicitly disclose a vacuum body, electrically-driven fan and a starting and stopping device. Vacuum bodies, electrically driven fans and a power switch are well-known in the art and do not provide patentable significance (see, e.g., Conrad Fig. 1 disclosing a vacuum body and paragraphs [0218]-[0223] disclosing a power switch to electrically couple the motor/fan to the power source and to operate the vacuum).
As to claim 2, the combination of Bertram and Conrad discloses that the intake device can be configured to generate data providing said control unit with information about the state of the intake device, the data enabling said control unit to control said suction unit (see Bertram paragraphs [0011]-[0012] and [0016]-[0020] disclosing that the intake device and sensor can be connected to the control unit and where the sensor can be considered as part of the intake device (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) where rearrangement of parts is prima facie obvious)).
As to claim 3, the combination of Bertram and Conrad disclose a valve that can be opened and closed by the control unit (read as an actuator configured to change the state of the intake device based on the signal generated by the control unit) (see Bertram paragraphs [0011]-[0012] and [0016]-[0020]).
As to claim 4, the combination of Bertram and Conrad discloses that the power switch is an electrical switch that can communicate with the control unit (see Conrad paragraphs [0218]-[0223] disclosing power switch to power the components of the vacuum cleaner and wherein a wired connection is understood).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2013/0008468 to Bertram et al. in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2015/0000069 to Conrad et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2019/0075989 to Krebs et al. and U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2004/0221415 to Tondra et al.
Bertram and Conrad are relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 9, the combination of Bertram and Conrad discloses that the intake device includes a valve configured to be operated by the control unit and fluidically connected with said suction channel and configured to allow air to bypass a nozzle inlet of said nozzle (see, e.g., Bertram Figs. 1-3 disclosing valve 7 that is configured to be operated by the control unit and fluidically connected with said suction channel and configured to allow air to bypass a nozzle inlet of said nozzle). While the combination of Bertram and Conrad does not explicitly disclose that the valve is disposed in the nozzle, rearrangement of parts is prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) and Bertram discloses that the valve can be located in various places along the suction channel and said location does not provide patentable significance (see Bertram Figs. 1-3). While the combination of Bertram and Conrad does not explicitly disclose that the valve is a solenoid valve, use of solenoid valves for valves is well known in the art and does not provide patentable significance (see Krebs paragraphs [0055], [0074], [0076]; Tondra paragraph [0023]; see MPEP 2143(I)(B) where simple substitution of one known equivalent element for another to obtain predictable results is prima facie obvious).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3296. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30pm.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at 571-272-1344. 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.
/DOUGLAS LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714