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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 2 recites “LED: s” which is a misspelling of “LEDs”.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
There is no period at the end of the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 4-6, 8 and 9-14 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites “such as” and it is unclear if the motor or LEDs are required feature. “such as” should be replaced with “including”.
Claim 5 recites “the agitator/brush” and there is no antecedent basis for that element.
Claim 8 recites “the main unit” and there is no antecedent basis for that element.
Claim 9, line 4 recites “the at least one setting” and there is no antecedent basis for that element.
Claim 14 recites “the main unit” and there is no antecedent basis for that element.
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.
Claims 1, 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhou (US 2019/0021567).
As to claim 1, Zhou includes a nozzle (The portion of the vacuum at 200; Fig. 1) for a vacuum cleaner comprising at least one electrical terminal (The control unit) and an electrical circuit (The wire leading from the electric motor of the floor brush to the floor brush; para 23) configured to provide identity data (Data on the current of the electric motor of the floor brush; para 23) about the nozzle via said at least one electrical terminal (The control unit determines the type of floor brush based on the sensed current; para 23).
As to claim 2, wherein the electrical circuit is a constant current generator (Current flows to the floor brush continuously to cause the floor brush to rotate; para 19) and where the nozzle is identified by the current magnitude generated by the constant current generator when a voltage is applied (para 23).
As to claim 5, wherein the motor is configured to drive an agitator and/or brush for cleaning (The portion of the vacuum at 200 has a rotating brush, which is an agitator, and it is driven by the motor; Fig. 1 and para 19).
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, 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 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (US 2019/0021567) in view of Baumhakel (US 2006/0195991).
As to claim 3, Zhou does not include wherein the nozzle comprises at least one additional electrical terminal for receiving electrical power.
Baumhakel includes a vacuum cleaner having a nozzle with three floor brushes (1, 2, 3; para 40).
It would have been an obvious to modify Zhou to have three floor brushes, as taught by Baumhakel, and it would have been an obvious duplication of parts to provide each floor brush with a different motor powering it and each motor receiving power from one wire (The terminal is an end of a wire), in order to enhance the cleaning ability using multiple floor brushes.
As to claim 4, wherein the nozzle comprises an electric device such as a motor (The “electric motor” of para 15 or the motors added in claim 3) and/or one or more LEDs, for illumination and/or sanitization, driven by power received via said at least one additional electrical terminal (The end of each wire powers one motor).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (US 2019/0021567) in view of Ford (US 2019/0274499).
As to claim 8, Zhou does not include wherein the nozzle further comprises a switch configured to start up a main unit from the nozzle.
Ford includes a nozzle (126, 122) having a switch (117) configured to start up (activate) a main unit (The component for separating the nozzle from the rest of the vacuum) from the nozzle (para 27).
It would have been obvious to modify Zhou to include wherein the nozzle further comprises a switch configured to start up a main unit from the nozzle, as taught by Ford, in order to facilitate removal of the nozzle from the vacuum cleaner for repair and replacement.
Claims 9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (US 2019/0021567) in view of Terry (US 2020/0154968).
As to claim 9, Zhou includes a vacuum cleaner (The “handheld vacuum cleaner”) comprising a motor/fan unit (inherently included in a vacuum) and a nozzle (6) according to claim 1, wherein the vacuum cleaner comprises a controller (The “control unit” of para 23. For this claim, the electrical terminal is the “current sampling circuit” in Fig. 2 and paragraph 24) configured to receive said identity data via a wireline (The “wire”; para 19) connection and to control the operation of the at least one setting (The setting controlled is whether the vacuum is on or off. The control unit can stop the vacuum based on the current sensed; para 23) of the vacuum cleaner based on the received identity data.
Zhou does not include the motor/fan unit powered by a battery.
Terry includes a vacuum cleaner (100) powered by a battery (“rechargeable battery cells”; para 31).
It would have been obvious to modify the vacuum cleaner, including the motor/fan unit, to be powered by a battery, as taught by Terry, in order to prevent the need for an extension cord if the vacuum must be far from the wall outlet.
As to claim 11, wherein the controller is configured to identify a nozzle by comparing the received identity data with values pre-stored in a look-up table (The vacuum is equipped with floor brushes of different types and each having a different motor to power the brush. To determine the type of floor brush based on the current, a look-up table would be necessary; para 26).
As to claim 12, wherein the controller is configured to set the power supplied to the nozzle in accordance with the received identity data (Power given to the nozzle is either maintained or the power is cut off; para 23).
As to claim 13, wherein the controller is configured to set the power of the motor or fan of the main unit in accordance with the received identity data (The power set is either the same power already there or the power is cut off; para 23).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (US 2019/0021567) in view of Terry (US 2020/0154968), and further in view of Xie (US 2019/0117031).
As to claim 10, Zhou does not include wherein said at least one setting of the vacuum cleaner is a PWM power provided to the nozzle.
Xie includes a vacuum cleaner wherein said at least one setting (Current/voltage is given to the brush motor is changed using PWM) of the vacuum cleaner is a PWM power provided to the nozzle (para 23-24).
It would have been an obvious to modify Zhou so that said at least one setting of the vacuum cleaner is a PWM power provided to the nozzle, as taught by Xie, in order to prevent the brush motor from overworking and overheating which gives the brush motor greater protection (para 23).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (US 2019/0021567) in view of Terry (US 2020/0154968), and further in view of Baumhakel (US 2006/0195991).
As to claim 14, Zhou does not include wherein at least three electrical wires run between the main unit and the nozzle.
Baumhakel includes a vacuum cleaner having a nozzle with three floor brushes (1, 2, 3; para 40).
It would have been an obvious to modify Zhou to have three floor brushes, as taught by Baumhakel, and it would have been an obvious duplication of parts to provide each floor brush with a different motor powering it and each motor receiving power from one wire (The terminal is an end of a wire), in order to enhance the cleaning ability using multiple floor brushes.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW A. HORTON whose telephone number is (571)270-5039. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Monica S. Carter can be reached at (571) 272-4475. 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.
/ANDREW A HORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723