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
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 7-11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of copending Application No. 18/553,238 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the claims are essentially the same invention.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 cleaning apparatus” in Claims 1-11, “suction unit” in Claim 1, “inlet channeling unit” in Claims 1, 10, and 11, and “outlet channeling unit” in Claims 1, 9, 10, and 11.
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 11 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 11 recites the limitation "the second expansion chamber". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims since a second expansion chamber has not been previously claimed.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the third expansion chamber". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims since a third expansion chamber 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public 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 1-3, 6, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin et al. WO 2015/032151 (hereafter Lin et al.).
Regarding Claim 1, Lin et al. anticipates:
1. (Currently Amended) A floor cleaning apparatus (vacuum cleaner) comprising:
a cleaning assembly (dust collecting device 100);
a suction unit (intake device 200) provided with a motor (210) and an impeller (inherent part of intake device to generate air flow) coupled with the motor;
an inlet channeling unit (air inlet 250), operative at an inlet side of the suction unit, wherein the inlet channeling unit is in fluid communication with at least one portion of the cleaning assembly;
an outlet channeling unit (third motor cover 240), connecting an outlet side of the suction unit (Figure 2) to at least one exhaust aperture (air outlet 260) of the floor cleaning apparatus;
wherein the outlet channeling unit comprises:
a first expansion chamber (first air passage 271) facing the outlet side of the impeller and having an outlet port (second gas outlet 231) in fluid communication with the exhaust aperture (shown in Figure 2),
at least one intercepting wall (first motor cover 220) comprising a plurality of through holes (perforated holes forming first air outlet 2211, Figure 2), the intercepting wall operating inside the first expansion chamber and being positioned to intercept air flow moving from the impeller outlet side to the outlet port of the first expansion chamber (shown in Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 2, Lin et al. anticipates:
2. (Currently Amended) The floor cleaning apparatus (vacuum cleaner) according to claim 1, wherein the first expansion chamber (first air passage 271) extends about a periphery of the impeller (inherent part of intake device to generate air flow)(shown in Figure 2) defining an annular flow volume entirely surrounding the impeller (shown in Figure 2) and wherein the intercepting wall (first motor cover 220) has an annular shape and is inserted in the annular flow volume of the first expansion chamber (shown in Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 3, Lin et al. anticipates:
3. (Currently Amended) The floor cleaning apparatus (vacuum cleaner) according to claim 1, wherein the first expansion chamber (first air passage 271) radially extends between the outlet side of the impeller (inherent part of intake device to generate air flow) and an outer peripheral wall (second motor cover 230) surrounding the impeller (shown in Figure 2) and is positioned at a radial distance from the outlet side of the impeller, wherein the at least one intercepting wall is positioned radially between the outlet side of the impeller and the outer peripheral wall of the first expansion chamber (shown in Figure 2);
wherein the first expansion chamber and/or the intercepting wall are concentrically positioned relative to the impeller and extend all around the impeller periphery (shown in Figure 2;
and wherein the annular flow volume of the first expansion chamber has a constant radial width (shown in Figure 2 at locations of first air outlet 2211 holes).
Regarding Claim 6, Lin et al. anticipates:
6. (Currently Amended) The floor cleaning apparatus (vacuum cleaner) according to claim 1, wherein the through holes (perforated holes forming first air outlet 2211, Figure 2) are distributed, optionally homogeneously distributed, on the intercepting wall (first motor cover 220) and positioned all around the impeller periphery (shown in Figure 2); optionally wherein one or more series of through holes are present on the intercepting wall, with each series of through holes comprising through holes at a same angular distance from one another and positioned all around the impeller periphery.
Regarding Claim 11, Lin et al. anticipates:
11. (Currently Amended) The floor cleaning apparatus (vacuum cleaner) according to claim 1, wherein no alveolar material is applied to walls delimiting the first expansion chamber first air passage 271 or to walls delimiting the second expansion chamber (not selected) or to walls delimiting the third expansion chamber (not selected); optionally (not selected) wherein the entire outlet channeling unit (third motor cover 240) comprises no alveolar material is applied contacting an air flow crossing the outlet channeling unit and/or the entire inlet channeling unit (air inlet 250) comprises no alveolar material contacting an air flow crossing the inlet channeling unit (shown in Figure 2).
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 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. WO 2015/032151 (hereafter Lin et al.).
Regarding Claim 4, Lin et al. teaches:
4. (Currently Amended) The floor cleaning apparatus (vacuum cleaner) according claim 1, wherein the through holes (perforated holes forming first air outlet 2211, Figure 2) on the intercepting wall (first motor cover 220) have axial symmetry, optionally cylindrical conformation (shown in Figure 2);
wherein each one of the plurality of through holes has an area of fluid passage, measured perpendicular to the respective axis of symmetry (centerline shown in Figure 2), of between 3 mm2 and 180 mm2 (see discussion below);
wherein the through holes have respective axes of symmetry (centerline shown in Figure 2) parallel to each other or converging towards a common axis, optionally converging towards an impeller axis of symmetry (shown in Figure 2).
Lin et al. teaches a first motor cover 220 with holes allowing fluid passage between chambers. Lin et al. does not provide dimensions for each of the holes. Therefore, Lin et al. does not disclose an area of fluid passage for each hole. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the size, spacing, and number of holes with the motivation to achieve a desired pressure drop/noise suppression resulting in holes with a specific area of fluid passage between 3 mm2 and 180 mm2 since that range covers hole diameters between 2 mm and 15 mm, which based on the drawing scale appears to be the case, 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 5, Lin et al. teaches:
5. (Currently Amended) The floor cleaning apparatus (vacuum cleaner) according to claim 1, wherein each one of the through holes (perforated holes forming first air outlet 2211, Figure 2) has a cross section, taken perpendicular to the respective axes of symmetry (centerline shown in Figure 2), which is circular and which has a diameter of between 2 mm and 15 mm (see discussion below).
Lin et al. teaches a first motor cover 220 with holes allowing fluid passage between chambers. Lin et al. does not provide dimensions for each of the holes. Therefore, Lin et al. does not disclose an area of fluid passage for each hole. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the size, spacing, and number of holes with the motivation to achieve a desired pressure drop/noise suppression resulting in holes with a diameter between 2 mm and 15 mm since that range covers hole diameters which based on the drawing scale appears to be the case, 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-10 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 noise suppression.
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