DETAILED ACTION
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 requires insertion of “and” after “body” to be grammatically correct.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The third to last line requires insertion of “and” after “body” to be grammatically correct.
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 10-11 and 19 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 10 recites the limitation "the airflow path" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the turbine air inlet" in lines 1-2 and “the turbine air inlet” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, claim 11 is understood as depending on claim 10, which corrects these mistakes.
Claim 19, line 2 recites “configured to agitate to be cleaned” and it is unclear what element agitates and what element is “to be cleaned”.
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 1-9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephens (US 2005/0076467) in view of Zahuranec (US 2007/0136979), Krebs (US 2012/0110775), and McCormick (US 6,226,832) or, alternatively, over Stephens in view of Krebs and Sham (US 5,341,541) [Zahuranec and McCormick may be substituted with Sham].
As to claim 1, Stephens includes a surface cleaner comprising:
a suction source (46; para 13) configured to generate a suction airflow along an airpath between a suction inlet (70) and an air exhaust (The cleaner inherently includes an air outlet);
a collection container (64) along the airpath in communication with the suction inlet and the suction source (para 14);
a base (44, 66, 62) movable along a surface to be cleaned, the base including a nozzle (66, 62) forming the suction inlet;
an accessory body (62, 90) removably coupled to the base (Fig. 1 and 2);
a conduit (60) between the nozzle and the collection container along the airflow path;
the nozzle having a first nozzle portion (66) having a first nozzle passageway (The space within 66) attached to the base and a second nozzle portion (62) having a second nozzle passageway (The space within 62) attached to the accessory body and removable with the accessory body;
the first nozzle portion and the second nozzle portion releasably coupled (66 and 62 are connected together; Fig. 2) connecting the first and second nozzle passageways along the airpath in fluid communication with the collection container when the accessory body is coupled to the base (Air flows through 66, then 62, and then 64);
wherein the first nozzle passageway forms the suction inlet when the accessory body is coupled to the base (When 62/90 is coupled to 44, air first flows through the space within 66); and
wherein the second nozzle passageway forms the suction inlet in communication with the collection container and the suction source when the accessory body is uncoupled from the base (When 62/90 is not coupled to 44, air first flows through the space within 62).
Stephens does not include an accessory agitator disposed on the accessory body, and an upright portion pivotally coupled to the base.
Zahuranec includes a surface cleaner comprising an accessory agitator (302) disposed on an accessory body (300) [300 is an attachment on its surface cleaner and 62/90 also is].
McCormick includes a surface cleaner comprising a removable agitator (40) [column 5, lines 55-65].
Krebs includes a surface cleaner comprising an upright portion (12) pivotally coupled to a base (40) [para 30].
It would have been obvious to modify the nozzle of the accessory body of Stephens to include an agitator, as taught by Zahuranec, in order to enhance the cleaning provided by its nozzle, and it would have been obvious to make the agitator removable, as taught by McCormick, in order to repair or replace it. Since the agitator, as modified by McCormick, is removable, air can flow through the first and second nozzle portions without slowing down.
It would have been obvious to modify the upright portion to be pivotally coupled to a base, as taught by Krebs, in order to allow the base to vacuum up debris in hard to reach zones.
Alternatively, the modification using Zahuranec and McCormick may be substituted with Sham.
Sham includes a handheld surface cleaner comprising a removable agitator (scrubbing brush 102) [If a brush like 102 were added to the accessory body, it would not interfere with surface cleaner operations].
It would have been obvious to modify the accessory body of Stephens to include a removable agitator, as taught by Sham, in order to enhance the cleaning provided by its nozzle.
As to claim 2, wherein the conduit is connected to the accessory body (60 is on 90; Fig. 1).
As to claim 3, the surface cleaner further comprising:
a supply tank (52) configured to contain a cleaning solution (para 13);
a fluid distribution system having a fluid distributor (58) disposed on the base in fluid
communication with the supply tank configured to selectively deliver fluid from the supply tank to the surface to be cleaned (para 13); and
an actuator (50) configured to initiate fluid delivery through the fluid distributor (para 14) [Fig. 1].
As to claim 4, wherein the fluid distributor is disposed on the accessory body and configured to deliver fluid to the surface to be cleaned when the accessory body is coupled to the base and the actuator (now understood as 47) is actuated (para 19).
As to claim 5, wherein the actuator is a first actuator (47) and the accessory body includes a second actuator (now understood as 50), wherein the fluid distributor is configured to dispense fluid when the accessory body is uncoupled from the base and the second actuator is actuated (para 14).
As to claim 6, wherein the collection container is configured to store liquid drawn through the
suction inlet (para 20).
As to claim 7, Stephens does not include an agitator operatively positioned in the base configured to agitate the surface to be cleaned; and an agitator drive configured to operate the agitator.
Zahuranec includes an agitator (302) operatively positioned in a base (300) configured to agitate the surface to be cleaned; and an agitator drive (304) configured to operate the agitator (para 25).
It would have been obvious to modify the nozzle of the base of Stephens to include an agitator, as taught by Zahuranec, in order to enhance the cleaning provided by its nozzle.
As to claim 8, the base including a forward side, a rearward side, an upper side, a lower side, a
first lateral side and a second lateral side, the base having a recess (The opening on 68) on at least one of the forward side and the upper side (68 is on an upper side of the base), wherein the accessory body is disposed in the recess when the accessory body is coupled to the base (Fig. 1).
As to claim 9, the modification using Zahuranec and McCormick provides wherein the accessory agitator is removable (The agitator was modified to be removable) with the accessory body (90/62 was originally removable) from the base and operable when the accessory body is uncoupled from the base, the surface cleaner further comprising, an accessory agitator drive (The agitator added by Zahuranec rotates by motor) configured to operate the accessory agitator when the accessory body is uncoupled from the base (The agitator may be activated any time).
As to claim 15, Stephens does not include further comprising a gasket between the first nozzle portion and the second nozzle portion.
Zahuranec includes a gasket (108) between a first portion (10) and a second portion (20) [para 20 and 33]. The gasket seals the portions together.
It would have been obvious to modify Stephens to have a gasket between the first nozzle portion and the second nozzle portion, as taught by Zahuranec, in order to seal the airflow that flows through each portion.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephens (US 2005/0076467) in view of Krebs (US 2012/0110775).
As to claim 20, Stephens includes a surface cleaner comprising:
a suction source (46; para 13) configured to generate a suction airflow along an airpath between a suction inlet (70) and an air exhaust (The cleaner inherently includes an air outlet);
a collection container (64) along the airpath in communication with the suction inlet and the
suction source (para 14);
a base (44, 66, 62) movable along a surface to be cleaned, the base including a nozzle forming the suction inlet;
an accessory body (62, 90) removably coupled to the base (Fig. 1 and 2);
a conduit (60) between the nozzle and the collection container along the airflow path;
the nozzle having a first nozzle portion (66) having a first nozzle passageway (The space within 66) attached to the base and a second nozzle portion (62) having a second nozzle passageway (The space within 62) attached to the accessory body and removable with the accessory body;
the first nozzle portion and the second nozzle portion releasably coupled (66 and 62 are connected together; Fig. 2) connecting the first and second nozzle passageways along the airpath in fluid communication with the collection container when the accessory body is coupled to the base (Air flows through 66, then 62, and then 64);
wherein the first nozzle passageway forms the suction inlet when the accessory body is
coupled to the base (When 62/90 is coupled to 44, air first flows through the space within 66); and
wherein the second nozzle passageway forms the suction inlet in communication with the collection container and the suction source when the accessory body is uncoupled from the base (When 62/90 is not coupled to 44, air first flows through the space within 62), the surface cleaner further comprising,
a supply tank (52) configured to contain a cleaning solution (para 13);
a fluid distribution system having a fluid distributor (58) disposed on the base in fluid communication with the supply tank configured to selectively deliver fluid from the supply tank to the surface to be cleaned (para 13); and
an actuator (47) configured to initiate fluid delivery through the fluid distributor, wherein the fluid distributor is disposed on the accessory body configured to deliver fluid to the surface to be cleaned when the accessory body is coupled to the base and the actuator is actuated (para 19 and Fig. 1).
Stephens does not include an upright portion pivotally coupled to the base.
Krebs includes a surface cleaner comprising an upright portion (12) pivotally coupled to a base (40) [para 30].
It would have been obvious to modify the upright portion to be pivotally coupled to a base, as taught by Krebs, in order to allow the base to vacuum up debris in hard to reach zones.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12-14 and 16 are 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. Note: Claim 11 is understood as depending on claim 10 because it includes turbine features.
Claims 17-18 are allowed.
Claims 10-11 and 19 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The best reference, Zahuranec (US 2007/0136979), includes a surface cleaner (Fig. 1) with a base (300) having a nozzle (The opening at the bottom of 300) that is a suction inlet, the base is composed of a first accessory body (14) removable from the base and a second accessory body (12) removable from the base, but does not include the nozzle having first and second nozzle passageways removable from each other, as stated in claim 17, lines 19-24.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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