DETAILED ACTION
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 1 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.
Regarding claim 1:
The term “outlet sidewall of the recovery tank” is unclear because the claim does not previously relate the outlet to the side walls or disclose what an outlet sidewall is. As best understood by the examiner, the limitation is considered to be intended to define the “outlet sidewall” as a portion of at least one of the side walls of the recovery tank that is/are adjacent to the outlet duct, and will be treated as such for the sake of the current Office Action.
Additionally, the limitation “when the cover is removed from the recovery tank” is not understood to have any relevance to the preceding limitation because the preceding limitation does not chance regardless of the location of the cover.
Regarding claim 19, it is unclear what is considered to be the “back wall” because there is no front or back direction claimed in the preceding claims from which claim 19 depends. Additionally, based on the disclosure and drawings as a whole, as well as new claim 20, the air inlets are directed towards side walls of the recovery chamber. As best understood by the examiner, the limitation is considered to be intended to define that the air exiting the tank inlets will contact a portion of the side walls of the recovery tank and will flow downward along the wall due to gravity, and will be treated as such for the sake of the current Office Action.
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 1-7, 9-12, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueller (6,368,373) in view of Evans (3,818,537).
Regarding claim 1, Mueller discloses a surface cleaner comprising: a body (2); a handle (4) positioned on the body; a suction inlet (11); an air exhaust (inherently present from fan 3); a suction source (3) configured to generate a suction airflow along an airpath between the suction inlet and the air exhaust; a recovery tank (12) along the airpath in communication with the suction inlet and the suction source; the recovery tank including an upper portion, a cover (20) removably connected to the upper portion, the recovery tank further including a lower portion, side walls connecting the upper portion and the lower portion, a tank inlet (34) in communication with the suction inlet, and an outlet duct (51) within the recovery tank in communication with the air exhaust, wherein the outlet duct extends from the lower portion toward the upper portion, and wherein the cover forms an outlet chamber (30) adjacent the outlet duct when the cover is connected to the recovery tank. However, Mueller fails to disclose that the outlet duct extends above an outlet sidewall of the recovery tank. Evans teaches a similar cleaner, also for collecting liquid and debris via suction into a tank, with airflow leaving the tank via an outlet duct (19), and Evans teaches that the outlet duct (standpipe 19) extends above the top of the tank such that if the level of spent cleaning solution is permitted to rise too high in the vacuum tank by an inattentive operator, it will flow into the solution tank before it flows into the standpipe to the vacuum blower (Col. 2, lines 47-53). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to extend the outlet duct of Mueller to a level above the sidewall of the recovery tank, as taught by Evans, to prevent liquid from flowing through the outlet duct to the fan if too much liquid is collected in the recovery tank (with or without the cover removed from the recovery tank; as noted above, the configuration of the outlet duct relative to the “outlet sidewall” is independent of the position of the cover).
Regarding claim 2, Mueller further discloses a supply tank (6) in communication with a distributor.
Regarding claim 3, Mueller further discloses that the outlet duct includes a tank outlet (50) in the upper portion, the tank outlet being in the airpath between the recovery tank and the outlet duct.
Regarding claim 4, Mueller further discloses that the tank inlet includes an inlet chamber (28) formed by inlet walls where the inlet walls are a part of the recovery tank (shown as part of the cover, which is disclosed as part of the recovery tank).
Regarding claim 5, Mueller further discloses that the inlet chamber and the outlet chamber are separated by a cover wall (32) and an inlet wall (surrounding 51 in Fig. 6).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Mueller further discloses that at least a portion the outlet duct is surrounded on 3 or 4 sides by the cover (Fig. 1 shows the lower end of the cover extending below the upper end of the outlet duct, such that the upper end of the outlet duct is surrounded on 4 sides by the cover).
Regarding claim 9, Mueller as modified by Evans teaches that the upper end of the outlet duct extends above the outlet sidewall, but Mueller and Evans both fail to disclose any specific distance that the duct and sidewall overlap. Based on the location of the overlap between the upper end of the outlet duct and the outlet sidewall, as taught by Evans, the extension of the outlet duct above the sidewall is provided to prevent liquid passing into the outlet duct that would reach the fan/motor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide enough overlap to ensure that liquid at the top of the sidewalls does not flow into the outlet duct, wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that an overlap of less than 1mm would likely fail to provide enough spacing from the top of the sidewalls and the upper level of liquid (i.e. particularly during movement of the cleaner, liquid could easily splash/slosh into the outlet duct), while more than 20mm would be substantially more than necessary. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to extend the outlet duct within the claimed range of 1-20mm above the outlet sidewall in order to provide avoid liquid entering the outlet duct, while limiting the overlap under a length that would be excessive.
Regarding claim 10, Mueller further discloses that a top portion of the outlet duct is accessible from the top when the cover is removed from the recovery tank (as viewed in Fig. 6).
Regarding claims 11 and 14, Mueller further discloses that the lower portion of the recovery tank includes a baffle wall (84/86) positioned between a portion of the inlet duct and a portion of the outlet duct.
Regarding claim 12, Mueller further discloses that the recovery tank includes a front portion and a back portion (any portion may be considered front and back portions, depending on the orientation of the device relative to a user), wherein the tank inlet is positioned in one of the front portion and the back portion and the outlet duct is positioned in the other of the front portion and the back portion (inlet and outlet portions clearly shown opposite from one another).
Regarding claim 15, Mueller further discloses that the inlet duct and the outlet duct are formed in the recovery tank (both formed within the cover, which is considered to be part of the recovery tank).
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over either of Mueller (6,368,373) in view of Evans (3,818,537) as applied to claim 1, and in view of Chavana, Jr. et al. (2019/0133398).
Regarding claims 16-18, Mueller only discloses a single inlet connecting the inlet duct to the inlet chamber. Chavana discloses a similar surface cleaner, also having a recovery tank, with an inlet duct extending therein to convey liquid and debris from an inlet of the cleaner to the recovery tank, and Chavana teaches that the inlet duct includes two inlets that diverge from one another and curve from the inlet duct to the inlet openings, teaching that the curve will divert the flow within the duct to prevent or reduce the amount of foam that is generated inside the recovery tank (paragraphs 87-88). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the inlet duct of Mueller with similar diverging ducts forming two inlets to the tank, as taught by Chavana, to prevent/reduce foam generation within the tank. Thus, the recovery tank will include a second tank inlet in communication with the suction inlet (claim 16), with the tank inlet and the second tank inlet positioned such that liquid and debris flows generally tangentially to the air flow through an inlet duct (similar to the configuration taught by Chavana; claim 17) and the inlet duct will include a flow splitter (as taught by Chavana; claim 18).
Regarding claim 19, similar to claim 12, effectively any wall of Mueller may be considered as a back wall (or side wall, see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 above) towards which the inlets of Chavana would be directed, resulting in the back/side wall directing fluid along the airpath downward toward the baffle wall.
Claims 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over either of Mueller (6,368,373) in view of Evans (3,818,537) as applied to claim 1, and in view of Monson (7,824,456).
Regarding claim 20, Mueller discloses the tank inlet, as discussed above, but fails to disclose first and second tank inlets. Monson discloses another similar surface cleaner, also having a recovery tank, with an inlet duct extending therein to convey liquid and debris from an inlet of the cleaner to the recovery tank, and Monson teaches that the inlet duct includes a plurality of inlets in the form of a diffuser that diverge from one another in opposite directions inside the recovery tank, teaching that the diffuser apertures may have the favorable characteristic of helping to prevent the airborne particles of waste cleaning liquid within the diffuser from being sucked into the inlets of the vacuum pumps by increasing dwell time (Col. 7, lines 19-61). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a similar diffuser to the inlet of Mueller, having a plurality of inlets in the form of a diffuser that diverge from one another in opposite direction as taught by Monson, to similarly increase dwell time and prevent particles and liquid from being sucked into the inlet of the vacuum pipe (outlet duct). Therefore, the diffuser taught by Monson, includes at least first and second tank inlets, and wherein the first tank inlet is configured to direct fluid flow in a first direction and the second tank inlet is configured to directly fluid flow in a second direction, opposite the first direction.
Regarding claim 21, when the diffuser of Monson is provided to the inlet duct of Mueller, which extends in a direction toward a rear wall on which the outlet duct is located, with the outlets being directed perpendicular to the inflow within the inlet duct (as taught by Monson), the outlet duct will be spaced from the first and second tank inlets in a third direction, the third direction being generally perpendicular to the first and second directions.
Regarding claim 22, when the diffuser of Monson is provided to the inlet duct of Mueller, which extends in a direction toward a rear wall on which the outlet duct is located, with the outlets being directed perpendicular to the inflow within the inlet duct (as taught by Monson), the first tank inlet is configured to direct fluid toward the first sidewall, and wherein the second tank inlet is configured to direct fluid toward the second sidewall (any walls oriented in the direction of each respective opposed inlet may be considered as first and second side walls).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 4 August 2026, with respect to the rejections over Mueller (6,368,373) 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 over Mueller in view of Evans, as discussed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Each of Wheiss, Jr. et al. (7,340,797) and Morphey et al. (2022/0071460) disclose cleaners having similar structure as the applicant’s claimed invention, including recovery tanks with covers thereon, inlet and outlet ducts and chambers.
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 October 2026
