DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the outlet duct is surrounded on 3 or 4 sides by the cover (claims 6 and 7), the baffle wall between the inlet chamber and outlet chamber (claim 11), baffle wall between the tank inlet and the tank outlet (claim 14) or the outlet chamber formed in the recovery tank (claim 15; see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 below) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 6, 7, 11 and 15 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, the claim limitations suggest that the entire outlet duct is surrounded by the cover, whereas the drawings clearly show only the upper end of the outlet duct being surrounded by the cover. Therefore, the limitation is considered to be intended to define that at least a portion of the outlet duct is surrounded on 3 or 4 sided by the cover, and will be treated as such for the sake of the current Office Action.
Regarding claims 11 and 14, the baffle wall is shown to be on the bottom of the inlet chamber, but not located between the inlet and outlet chambers because the outlet chamber, disclosed as portion 44, is located above the baffle wall and directly adjacent to the inlet duct. Similarly, the baffle wall clearly shown to be below the tank inlet (38) and the tank outlet (40), not between them. As best understood by the examiner, the limitations for both claims are considered to be intended to define that the baffle wall is located between a portion of the inlet duct and a portion of the outlet duct, and will be treated as such for both of claims 11 and 14 for the sake of the current Office Action.
Regarding claim 15, the claim limitation appears to contradict the previous limitation in claim 1 that the cover forms the outlet chamber adjacent the outlet duct when the cover is connected to the recovery tank. Thus, it is unclear if the claim is intended to provide an alternative location for the outlet chamber, within the tank side walls, or merely disclose that the outlet chamber is be formed by the cover which is considered to be part of the recovery tank (in which case, the limitation would be redundant to the limitation of claim 1). As best understood by the examiner, the limitation is considered to be intended to define that the outlet chamber is formed in the cover, which is part of the recovery tank, and will be treated as such for the sake of the current Office Action.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The limitation does not effectively provide any additional structure to the previously claimed invention, because any object inherently has a front portion and back portion, dependent on orientation and perspective of a user, but the claim does not relate the front and back portion to any other structure of the recovery tank to provide any additional structure. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-7 and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mueller (6,368,373).
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.
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 of (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 above) 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 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 (see rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 above).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, 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 chamber and the outlet chamber are formed in the recovery tank (both formed within the cover, which is considered to be part of the recovery tank; see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 above).
Claims 1, 3-8, 10, 12, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rukavina (11,607,093).
Regarding claim 1, Rukavina discloses a surface cleaner comprising: a body (4); a handle (18) positioned on the body; a suction inlet (30); an air exhaust (inherently present from fan 34); a suction source (34) configured to generate a suction airflow along an airpath between the suction inlet and the air exhaust; a recovery tank (22) along the airpath in communication with the suction inlet and the suction source; the recovery tank including an upper portion, a cover (78) 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 (54) in communication with the suction inlet, and an outlet duct (62) 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 (within portion 74) adjacent the outlet duct when the cover is connected to the recovery tank.
Regarding claim 3, Rukavina further discloses that the outlet duct includes a tank outlet (communicating with upper end of the outlet duct 62) in the upper portion, the tank outlet being in the airpath between the recovery tank and the outlet duct.
Regarding claim 4, Rukavina further discloses that the tank inlet includes an inlet chamber (between tank inlet 58 and top of inlet duct 50) 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, Rukavina further discloses that the inlet chamber and the outlet chamber are separated by a cover wall (wall of 77) and an inlet wall (surrounding the inlet chamber).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Rukavina further discloses that at least a portion of (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 above) the outlet duct is surrounded on 3 or 4 sides by the cover
PNG
media_image1.png
438
420
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Fig. 5 shows the lower end of the cover extending below the upper end of the outlet duct, along line X shown here, such that the upper end of the outlet duct is surrounded on 4 sides by the cover).
Regarding claim 8, Rukavina further discloses that at least a portion of the outlet duct extends above an outlet sidewall of the recovery tank (upper end of the duct clearly overlapping the lower end of the outlet sidewall defined by the cover).
Regarding claim 10, Rukavina further discloses that a top portion of the outlet duct is accessible from the top when the cover is removed from the recovery tank (clearly accessible when the cover is opened due to the location of the duct).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Rukavina 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, such that one side may be considered a front portion and the other side may be considered the rear portion).
Regarding claim 15, Rukavina further discloses that the inlet chamber and the outlet chamber are formed in the recovery tank (both formed within the cover, which is considered to be part of the recovery tank; see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 above).
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rukavina (11,607,093).
As discussed above for claim 8, Rukavina discloses that the upper end of the outlet duct extends above the outlet sidewall, but Rukavina fails 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, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the overlap is provided to allow a sealing engagement therebetween, to prevent leakage of the suction airflow that would reduce suction force, and possible allow liquid into the outlet duct that would pass to the fan/motor (due to the location of the juncture within the collection area of the recovery tank). 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 a proper seal, wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that an overlap of less than 1mm would likely fail to provide enough surface contact for a sufficient seal, 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 1-22mm into the outlet sidewall in order to provide a sufficient seal, while limiting the overlap under a length that would be excessive.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over either of Mueller (6,368,373) or Rukavina (11,607,093) as applied to claim 1, and in view of Chavana, Jr. et al. (2019/0133398).
Each of Mueller and Rukavina only disclose 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 ducts of Mueller and Rukavina 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).
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), Morphey et al. (2022/0071460) and Evans (3,818,567) disclose cleaners having similar structure as the applicant’s claimed invention, including recovery tanks with covers thereon, inlet and outlet ducts and chambers.
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 11 May 2026
Prosecution Insights