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: “control system” in Claims 15-19 and 23, and “fluid distribution system” in Claim 23.
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 § 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 15, 16, and 18-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nguyen US 2023/0292975 (hereafter Nguyen).
Regarding Claim 15, Nguyen anticipates:
15. A cleaner (extraction cleaner 10) comprising:
a suction motor (motor/fan assembly 19) operable to create a suction airflow from a suction inlet (suction nozzle 16) to an exhaust outlet (exhausted from extraction cleaner 10, Paragraph [0039]);
a control system (circuit board 260 in combination with first and second electronics control (Claim 11) and third electronic control (Claim 12)) configured to control the suction motor operable at predetermined suction levels corresponding to a plurality of user selectable modes (off, high/low suction, high/low agitator speed, high/low flow or combinations thereof); and
a user interface (electronic control 116) operatively connected to the control system, the user interface having a first user-actuatable input (first electronic control 116X - power switch, Paragraph [0077]) and a second user-actuatable input (“The third electronic control 116Z can switch between “flow on” and “flow off” states for the second pump 42 (FIG. 1) as described above. In other non-limiting examples, the at least one electronic control 116 can vary agitation speeds of the agitator 26 (FIG. 2), or vary fan speed of the motor/fan assembly 19 to adjust the level of suction at the suction nozzle 16” and “It should be understood that the at least one electronic control 116 can be in a variety of forms, non-limiting examples of which include a toggle switch, rocker switch, push button, or touchscreen or touchpad” - Paragraph [0077]);
wherein the first user-actuatable input (first electronic control 116X - power switch, Paragraph [0077]) is configured to select and operate the control system from among the plurality of user selectable modes (power switch selects “on” to provide power to electronics to operate cleaner in mode previously selected by user corresponding to one of two levels of suction or agitator speed);
wherein one of the plurality of user selectable modes is a favored mode (user selects a preferred, “favored”, switch position based on a desired level of suction or agitator speed as presented in Paragraph [0077] and doesn’t need to change level between cleaning operations. For example, a user would most likely always favor the highest amount of suction or agitator speed in most cases to maximize floor scrubbing and water collection during operation. Low agitator speed or low suction would only be desirable if cleaning delicate surfaces such as delicate area rugs or non-carpet materials); and
wherein the second user-actuatable input (toggle switch, rocker switch, push button, Paragraph [0077]) is configured to operate the control system in the favored mode (user positions the switch into favored position and the switch maintains the position).
Regarding Claim 16, Nguyen anticipates:
16. The cleaner of claim 15, wherein the favored mode (user selects a preferred, “favored”, switch position based on a desired level of suction or agitator speed as presented in Paragraph [0077] and doesn’t need to change level between cleaning operations) is user selected, and wherein the control system (circuit board 260 in combination with first and second electronics control (Claim 11) and third electronic control (Claim 12)) and the user interface are configured to receive input from the user interface (user actuates power switch to turn on vacuum cleaner with the other switch in a predetermined desired “favored” position) the identifying a predetermined setting activity assigning the favored mode to the second user-actuatable input (“favored”, switch position based on a desired level of suction or agitator speed as presented in Paragraph [0077]).
Regarding Claim 18, Nguyen anticipates:
18. The cleaner of claim 15, wherein the control system (circuit board 260 in combination with first and second electronics control (Claim 11) and third electronic control (Claim 12)) determines the favored mode (through sensing switch position during power up) by assigning the second user-actuatable input (“favored”, switch position based on a desired level of suction or agitator speed as presented in Paragraph [0077]) to activate the mode in which a user previously operated the cleaner (in a typical operation, the user would leave the switch in a favored position and use the power switch to turn on the device prompting the internal electronics to initiate the device operation in the favored mode with the predetermined suction and brush speed consistent with the selected switch position).
Regarding Claim 19, Nguyen anticipates:
19. The cleaner of claim 15 further comprising:
a brush roll (roll 130 of agitator 26) disposed adjacent the suction inlet (suction nozzle 16), the brush roll driven by a brush roll motor (motor labeled 140 in Figure 3),
wherein the control system (circuit board 260 in combination with first and second electronics control (Claim 11) and third electronic control (Claim 12)) is configured to control the brush roll motor operable at predetermined speeds corresponding to the plurality of user selectable modes (power switch selects “on” to provide power to electronics to operate cleaner in mode previously selected by user corresponding to one of two levels of suction or agitator speed).
Regarding Claim 20, Nguyen anticipates:
20. The cleaner of claim 19, wherein the plurality of user selectable modes (power switch selects “on” to provide power to electronics to operate cleaner in mode previously selected by user corresponding to one of two levels of suction or agitator speed) includes a mode having a combination of a suction motor power level (off, low, and high) and a brush speed (off, low, and high)(note that even if only one of suction or agitator is adjustable, the other will operate at a predetermined constant speed).
Regarding Claim 21, Nguyen anticipates:
21. The cleaner of claim 20, wherein the suction motor power level (off, low, and high) is one of high suction, medium suction, and low suction (note: only one of the suction levels is necessary as claimed).
Regarding Claim 22, Nguyen anticipates:
22. The cleaner of claim 20, wherein the brush speed (off, low, and high) is one of high rotational speed, medium rotational speed, low rotational speed, and no speed (note: only one of the speeds is necessary as claimed).
Regarding Claim 23, Nguyen anticipates:
23. The cleaner of claim 19 further comprising:
a fluid distribution system (flow control system 36) operable to deliver fluid to a surface to be cleaned (through spray bar 183),
wherein the control system (circuit board 260 in combination with first and second electronics control (Claim 11) and third electronic control (Claim 12)) is configured to control the fluid distribution system (The second electronic control 116Y can switch between “high flow” and “low flow” states for the first pump 41 as described above) operable at a plurality of predetermined fluid flow rates corresponding to the plurality of user selectable modes (power switch selects “on” to provide power to electronics to operate cleaner in second control mode previously selected by user with electronic switch 116Y corresponding to one of two levels of pump flow rates – Paragraph [0077]).
Regarding Claim 24, Nguyen anticipates:
24. The cleaner of claim 23, wherein the plurality of user selectable modes includes a mode having a combination of at least two of a suction motor power level, a brush speed, and a fluid flow rate (power switch selects “on” to provide power to electronics to operate cleaner in mode previously selected by user with electronic switch 116Y corresponding to one of two levels of pump flow rates and electronic switch 116Z corresponding to one of two levels of suction or agitator speed).
Regarding Claim 25, Nguyen anticipates:
25. The cleaner of claim 24, wherein the suction motor power level (off, low, and high) is one of high suction, medium suction, and low suction (note: only one of the suction levels is necessary as claimed).
Regarding Claim 26, Nguyen anticipates:
26. The cleaner of claim 24, wherein the brush speed (off, low, and high) is one of high rotational speed, medium rotational speed, low rotational speed, and no speed (note: only one of the speeds is necessary as claimed).
Regarding Claim 27, Nguyen anticipates:
27. The cleaner of claim 24, wherein the fluid flow rate (high flow, low flow) is one of high flow rate, medium flow rate, low flow rate, and no fluid distribution (note: only one of the speeds is necessary as claimed).
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.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen US 2023/0292975 (hereafter Nguyen) in view of Une JP 2011-045653 A (hereafter Une).
Regarding Claim 17, Nguyen teaches:
17. The cleaner of claim 15, wherein the control system (circuit board 260 in combination with first and second electronics control (Claim 11) and third electronic control (Claim 12)) determines the favored mode by recording an amount of time the cleaner operates in each of the plurality of modes over a duration (see discussion below), and wherein the control system assigns the second user-actuatable input (“The third electronic control 116Z can switch between “flow on” and “flow off” states for the second pump 42 (FIG. 1) as described above. In other non-limiting examples, the at least one electronic control 116 can vary agitation speeds of the agitator 26 (FIG. 2), or vary fan speed of the motor/fan assembly 19 to adjust the level of suction at the suction nozzle 16” and “It should be understood that the at least one electronic control 116 can be in a variety of forms, non-limiting examples of which include a toggle switch, rocker switch, push button, or touchscreen or touchpad” - Paragraph [0077]) to activate the mode having a greatest value of accumulated time in which the cleaner operates over the duration (see discussion below).
Nguyen discloses a second user-actuatable input 116Z that allows the user to select one of two levels of suction or one of two levels of agitator speed with a toggle switch, rocker switch, or push button switch. These switch types are commonly available in latching positions allowing the switch to be set by a user into a favored mode and maintained in the latched position during future on/off operations. Nguyen discloses the replacement of the cited switches with a touchscreen or touchpad. It is common knowledge that a touchscreen or touchpad will not retain a latched position and therefore may require the user to selected a desired favored mode after every power up. Nguyen does not disclose determining a favored mode by recording an amount of time the cleaner operates in each mode as claimed. The reference Une discloses a vacuum device that uses a control means 41 to measure the operational frequency of each operational mode of an electric blower 18 and determines a desired blower most common operational mode. The Une device then automatically applies the most common operational mode upon startup without requiring a provocative independent setting step by the user. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Nguyen device, in the scenario where the device employs a non-latching switch, to include the ability to determine a favored state by measuring the amount of time that the device operates in different modes as taught by Une with the motivation to automatically apply a startup setting that is most likely the setting desired by the user without requiring the user’s independent input.
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 or extraction cleaners with multiple-setting user interfaces.
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