DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of species A in the reply filed on 29 June 2026 is acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks/Arguments, filed 29 June 2026, with respect to the rejections of claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. 112 and all pending claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Conrad/Lee in view of Rosenzweig, as previously applied, and further in view of Henderson et al. and Park et al. as discussed below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 18 March and 24 December 2024 have been considered by the examiner. However, the examiner notes that the IDS documents include an extensive number of references, many/most of which have little to no relevance to the specifics of the claimed invention of the current application. Although the examiner has reviewed the applicant’s submitted references, the examiner does request that the applicant submit additional disclosure of any particularly relevant references to the current claimed invention for more focused review by the examiner.
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.
Claims 24-30, 31 (Lee only), 32 and 34-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable, alternatively over Conrad (8,875,340) or Lee et al. (5,836,047) in view of Rosenzweig (8,296,047; to be referred to hereinafter as RZ), Park et al. (7,360,274) and Henderson et al. (2014/0041149; to be referred to hereinafter as HE).
Regarding claim 24, both of Conrad and Lee disclose an upright surface cleaning apparatus comprising:(b) a surface cleaning head (106 of Conrad/306 of Lee) having a dirty air inlet; (c) an upper section moveably mounted to the surface cleaning head between a storage position and a floor cleaning position, the upper section comprises a wand (114, 116 of Conrad/350 of Lee) and a portable surface cleaning unit (110/300; to be referred to hereinafter as PSC); (d) the wand comprises an upper wand portion (116/350a) and a lower wand portion (114/350b), and, (e) the portable surface cleaning unit comprises a suction motor, an air treatment member and a carry handle (shown but not numbered for Conrad; any portion of hose 309 or connecting portion to the PSC of Lee capable of functioning as a carry handle and/or obvious in the art for nearly all canister style cleaners, as used in Fig. 7, to have some form of handle for a user to handle the PSC when separated), wherein the lower wand portion is removably connectable to the surface cleaning head whereby, in operation with the lower wand portion mounted to the surface cleaning head, the lower wand portion is in air flow communication with the surface cleaning head, wherein the portable surface cleaning unit is removably mountable to the lower wand portion and the portable surface cleaning unit is removable from the lower wand portion while the lower wand portion remains in air flow communication with the surface cleaning head (Fig. 7 of both references), wherein, in operation as an upright surface cleaning apparatus with the portable surface cleaning unit mounted to the lower wand portion, an air flow path extends from the dirty air inlet to a clean air outlet and comprises an upstream portion that extends from the dirty air inlet to the portable surface cleaning unit, the upstream portion includes the lower wand portion and the upper wand portion. However, Conrad and Lee both fail to disclose that the wand is bendable between the upper and lower wand portions. RZ disclose a wand for a vacuum cleaner, and teaches that it is preferable to connect upper and lower wand portions by a pivotal joint to provide a first configuration and a second configuration wherein, when the upper section is in the storage position and the upper section is in the first configuration, the upper wand portion extends upwardly from the lower wand portion (for use as a standard upright vacuum) and, when the upper section is in the storage position and the support structure is moved to the second configuration, the upper wand portion is rotated forwardly with respect to the lower wand portion (to allow a user to hold the upper wand portion, while the lower wand portion may be positioned substantially closer to the ground, to reach under furniture (Col.1, lines 49-48). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the wands of Conrad and Lee with a similar pivotal joint, as taught by RZ, to allow movement between the first and second positions as desired by the user. Further, when the wands of Conrad and Lee are provided with the pivotal joint, based on the disclosed locations of the upper and lower wand portions of Conrad and Lee, the wand would be movable from the first configuration to the second configuration while the portable surface cleaning unit is mounted to the lower wand portion (as used in the upright cleaning configuration taught by Conrad and Lee).
Regarding the new limitation of claim 24, both Conrad and Lee disclose that the PSC is removable from the wand, but fail to disclose any specific latching/securing structure. Both Park and HE disclose similar vacuum cleaners, also having a removable PSC, and both teaching that a latch is provided to optionally secure the PSC to the remainder of the cleaning apparatus, and both teaching that an actuator to (button 120 of Park/ 268 of HE) is drivingly connected to a locking member (119/272) that secures the PSC to the supporting portion. Anyone of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the locking member will prevent accidental disconnection of the PSC from the support, which could cause damage to the cleaner and/or injury to a user during use, while the actuator will allow a user to easily disengage the locking member while supporting the PSC for removal from the support. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide some form of similar actuator and locking member to the PSC of Conrad and Lee to similarly allow for a user to easily disengage the locking member while supporting the PSC for removal from the support, wherein the PSC of Conrad and Lee are both mounted to the lower wand portion, such that the locking member would also obviously be configured to secure the PSC to the lower wand portion.
Regarding claim 25, both of Conrad and Lee further disclose that, in operation as an upright surface cleaning apparatus with the portable surface cleaning unit mounted to the lower wand portion, an air flow path extends from the dirty air inlet to a clean air outlet and comprises an upstream portion that extends from the dirty air inlet to the portable surface cleaning unit, the upstream portion further comprises a flexible air flow conduit (117/350) that is positioned downstream of the bendable wand.
Regarding claim 26, both of Conrad and Lee further disclose that when the upper section is in the storage position and the upper section is in the first configuration, the upper wand portion has an upper end that is in air flow communication with an upstream end of the flexible air flow conduit.
Regarding claim 27, RZ further discloses that the pivot to make the wand bendable will mechanically and fluidly connect the upper wand portion and lower wand portion by a hinge member (132 of RZ).
Regarding claim 28, RZ further discloses that the hinge member comprises a flexible hose (30).
Regarding claim 29, Conrad further discloses that the air treatment member comprises a cyclone bin (124) assembly and the cyclone bin assembly is removable from the portable surface cleaning unit while the portable surface cleaning unit is mounted to the cleaning unit mount (as shown in Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 30, both of Conrad and Lee further disclose that when the upper section is in the storage position and the upper section is in the first configuration, the upper wand portion has an upper end and a drive handle (119/308) provided on the upper end of the upper wand portion whereby, in operation with the lower wand portion is mounted to the surface cleaning head, the drive handle is operable to move the surface cleaning head across a floor.
Regarding claim 31, Lee further disclose that when the upper section is in the storage position and the upper section is in the first configuration, the upper wand portion has an upper end and a drive handle section is removable connectable to an upper end of the upper wand portion whereby, in operation with the lower wand portion is mounted to the surface cleaning head, a drive handle provided on the drive handle section is operable to move the surface cleaning head across a floor (Lee discloses that each of the wand portions and the handle as “sectioned suction pipes”, and that respective components are removable from one another; Col. 5, lines 56-67).
Regarding claim 32, both of Conrad and Lee further disclose that in operation with the bendable wand in air flow communication with the surface cleaning head and the drive handle section is connected to the upper end of the upper wand portion, the drive handle section comprises a portion of the air flow path.
Regarding claim 34, RZ further discloses that the upper wand portion and lower wand portion are mechanically connected by a hinge member and the upper wand portion further comprises a second section (portion of 156, as viewed in Fig. 9 below pivot 158) wherein, when the upper section is in the storage position and the upper section is in the first configuration, the second section is positioned between an elevation of the hinge (158) and an elevation of a lower end of the first section.
Regarding claim 35, both of Conrad and Lee further disclose that the surface cleaning head has a front end, a rear end spaced from the front end in a rearward direction and first and second lateral sides that extend rearwardly from the front end to the rear end, the first and second lateral sides are spaced apart in a direction that is transverse to the rearward direction and the lower wand portion is centrally positioned between the first and second lateral sides.
Regarding claim 36, both of Conrad and Lee further disclose that the lower wand portion is a single hollow tube-like conduit member.
Regarding claims 37 and 38, when the actuator and locking mechanism taught by Park and HE are applied to the cleaners of Conrad and Lee, the locking member (119/272) effectively forms a latch which releasably secures the PSC to the lower mounting member (as discussed for claim 24 above) and both Park and HE teach that when the PSC is mounted to the wand/handle portion, the wand/handle portion has a first part (199 and 250 of Park/mounting post 224 of HE) that supports the portable cleaning unit and the latch is located above the first part. Therefore, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the mount for PSC of Conrad and Lee with similar known mount structure of Park and/or HE), to provide a lockable and secure connection between the PSC and the wand of Conrad/Lee, such that when the upper section of Conrad/Lee is in the storage position and the portable surface cleaning unit is mounted to the lower wand portion, the lower wand portion has a first part that supports the portable cleaning unit and the latch is located above the first part.
Regarding claim 39, when the upper section is in the storage position and the upper section is in the first configuration, the upper wand portion has an upper end and a drive handle is provided on the upper end of the upper wand portion and the drive handle is provided with an actuator (as taught by Park and HE; actuator located on the handle of Park, and immediately adjacent to the handle of HE, such that the handle is “provided with” the actuator to be actuated by a user while holding the handle) that is operably connected to the suction motor.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (5,836,047) in view of RZ (8,296,047), Park et al. (7,360,274) and Henderson et al. (2014/0041149), as applied to claim 24, and further in view of Hyatt (2010/0117357)
While Conrad and Lee disclose that the upper and lower sections are separable from one another, the pivot taught by RZ does not specifically disclose that the upper and lower wand portions are removable from the pivot member. Hyatt discloses another pivot member, intended for use in the same location and for the same function as the pivot of RZ, and Hyatt specifically discloses that the hinge member is formed as a separate component from the upper and lower wand portions, to allow the hinge to be removable from the wand if desired, or capable of addition to other vacuum cleaner having separable wand portions, but not pivotal connection. Therefore, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the pivot taught by RZ to the wands of Conrad and Lee in the form of a removable pivot member, similar to Hyatt, as a separable component that could be added directly to the cleaners of Conrad and Lee without any form of modification to the existing wand.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Each of Rowntree (2009/0019663), Nagai et al. (6,345,408), Rosenzweig (2010/0229315) and Luebbering et al. (8,020,251) disclose surface cleaners having similar structure as the applicant’s claimed invention.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN R MULLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4489. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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 at 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.
/BRYAN R MULLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723 8 September 2026
Prosecution Insights