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
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: “base member” in Claims 1 and 22, “energy storage member housing” in Claims 1 and 22, “first energy storage member” in Claims 1, 11, and 16, “second energy storage member” in Claims 5-8, 10, 12, and 13, “first energy storage member pack” in Claims 11, 14, and 15, and “second energy storage member pack” in Claims 13, 14, and 15.
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 § 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 1-4, 11, 16, and 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Percy-Raine et al. US 2020/0214521 (hereafter Percy-Raine et al.) in view of Campbell-Hill US 2019/0200824 (hereafter Campbell-Hill) and Stickney et al. US 2015/0155606 (hereafter Stickney et al.).
Regarding Claim 1, Percy-Raine et al. teaches:
1. (Currently Amended) A hand vacuum cleaner (vacuum cleaner 1) having an upper end (labeled in attached Figure 2 below), a lower end (labeled in attached Figure 2 below), a front end (labeled in attached Figure 2 below), a rear end (labeled in attached Figure 2 below), and a vacuum axis (labeled in attached Figure 2 below) extending longitudinally from the front end to the rear end (shown in attached Figure 2 below), the hand vacuum cleaner comprising:
(a) an airflow path from a dirty air inlet (inlet duct 21) to a clean air outlet (air vents 14) with a pre-motor filter (pre-motor filter 11) and a motor (motor of vacuum motor 12) and fan (fan of vacuum motor 12) assembly positioned in the air flow path, the motor and fan assembly having a motor axis of rotation (labeled in attached Figure 2 below);
(b) an air treatment chamber (dirt separator 10) positioned in the airflow path (shown in attached Figure 2 below);
(c) a handle (labeled in attached Figure 2 below) having a first end (labeled in attached Figure 2 below) and an opposed second end (labeled in attached Figure 2 below), the second end of the handle connected to a base member (labeled in attached Figure 2 and Figure 1 below) that extends forwardly from the handle (shown in attached Figure 2 below);[[and,]]
(d) a finger guard (labeled in attached Figure 2 below) positioned forward of the handle (shown in attached Figure 2 below), the finger guard having a first end (labeled in attached Figure 2 below) and an opposed second end (labeled in attached Figure 2 below); and
(e) an energy storage member housing (Stickney – housing 40, labeled in attached Figure 2, 1, 6, and combined figure below – see discussion below) comprising a first energy storage member (Stickney et al. – cells 44, labeled in attached Figure 2, 1, 6, and combined figure below) wherein, in use, a front side (forward-most part of finger guard at second end as shown in Figure 2 below) of the finger guard comprises the housing (shown in attached combined figure below)
wherein a first vertical plane (added to and labeled in attached Figure 2 below) that is transverse to the vacuum axis and that extends through a rear end of the air treatment chamber is forward of second end of the finger guard (shown in attached Figure 2 below), and
wherein a second vertical plane (added to and labeled in attached Figure 2 below) that is transverse to the vacuum axis extends through the pre-motor filter, the energy storage member housing and the finger guard (shown in attached Figure 2 below).
Percy-Raine et al., a Dyson assignee, discloses substantially all the limitations of the claim(s) except for disclosing the details regarding the first energy storage member pack comprising at least one first energy storage member within an energy storage member housing. Instead, Percy-Raine et al. generically shows the battery area with little structural detail as shown in Figure 2 below. The reference Campbell-Hill, also a Dyson assignee, discloses a battery pack 5 attached to handle 4 and an unlabeled finger guard as shown in Figure 1 below (note: the figure has been mirrored to show similarity with Percy-Raine et al. Figure 2). Campbell-Hill does not disclose a figure showing the detached battery. The reference Stickney et al., also a Dyson assignee, discloses a battery pack 10 removed from the handle, allowing the battery pack to be viewed in Figure 6 separated from the vacuum cleaner. Both the Campbell-Hill and Stickney et al. devices were known in the art for Dyson devices before the Percy-Raine et al. device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the generic battery details of Percy-Raine to include structural details for the battery pack and its removable attachment taught by Campbell-Hill and Stickney et al. with the motivation to better define the battery and its removable attachment on the Percy-Raine device. Attached below are labeled Percy-Rain et al. Figure 2, Campbell-Hill Figure 1, Stickney et al. Figure 6, and a combine figure made by the Examiner that shows the obvious modification to the Percy-Raine et al. device based on the teachings from Campbell-Hill to allow the removable mounting of the pack taught by Stickney et al.
PNG
media_image1.png
772
1002
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1564
1185
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
783
965
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Percy-Raine et al. teaches:
2. (Original) The hand vacuum cleaner of claim 1 wherein the handle (labeled in attached Figure 2 above) comprises a pistol grip handle (shown in attached Figure 2 above).
Regarding Claim 3, Percy-Raine et al. teaches:
3. (Currently Amended) The hand vacuum cleaner of claim 1 wherein:
(a) the handle (labeled in attached Figure 2 above) has
(b) the finger guard (labeled in attached Figure 2 above) has
wherein the first end (labeled in attached Figure 2 above) of the handle and the first end (labeled in attached Figure 2 above) of the finger guard are positioned on a main body (labeled in attached Figure 2 above) of the hand vacuum cleaner (vacuum cleaner 1) and the handle (labeled in attached Figure 2 above) and finger guard (labeled in attached Figure 2 above) each extend away from the main body (shown in attached Figure 2 above).
Regarding Claim 4, Percy-Raine et al. teaches:
4. (Original) The hand vacuum cleaner of claim 3 wherein the motor (motor of vacuum motor 12) and fan (fan of vacuum motor 12) assembly is positioned at the first end (labeled in attached Figure 2 above) of at least one of the finger guard and the handle (shown in attached Figure 2 above).
Regarding Claim 11, Percy-Raine et al. teaches:
11. (Original) The hand vacuum cleaner of claim 1 wherein a first energy storage member pack (Stickney et al. – battery pack 10, labeled in attached Figures 2, 1, 6, and combined figure above), which comprises the first energy storage member (Stickney et al. – cells 44, labeled in attached Figure 2, 1, 6, and combined figure above), is removably attachable (separable as shown in attached Figure 6 above) as part of
Regarding Claim 16, Percy-Raine et al. teaches:
16. (Currently Amended) The hand vacuum cleaner of claim 1 wherein
Regarding Claim 18, Percy-Raine et al. teaches:
18. (Currently Amended) The hand vacuum cleaner of claim 1 further comprising a main body (labeled in attached Figure 2 above) which houses the motor (motor of vacuum motor 12) and fan (fan of vacuum motor 12) assembly, the air treatment chamber (dirt separator 10) has a front end (labeled in attached Figure 2 above)and fan assembly (shown in attached Figure 2 above), the first end (labeled in attached Figure 2 above) of the handle (labeled in attached Figure 2 above) is positioned on the main body (shown in attached Figure 2 above) and the handle extends away from the main body (shown in attached Figure 2 above).
Regarding Claim 19, Percy-Raine et al. teaches:
19. (Currently Amended) The hand vacuum cleaner of claim 18 wherein the finger guard (labeled in attached Figure 2 above) has also extends through the main body (labeled in attached Figure 2 above)(shown in attached Figure 2 above).
Regarding Claim 20, Percy-Raine et al. teaches:
20. (Currently Amended) The hand vacuum cleaner of claim 18 wherein the finger guard (labeled in attached Figure 2 above) has also extends through the air treatment chamber (dirt separator 10)(shown in attached Figure 2 above).
Regarding Claim 21, Percy-Raine et al. teaches:
21. (New) The hand vacuum cleaner of claim 1 wherein the air treatment chamber (dirt separator 10) comprises a mount (labeled in attached Figure 2 above) at the rear end of the air treatment chamber (shown in attached Figure 2 above) and a horizontal plane (added to and labeled in attached Figure 2 above) that is parallel to the vacuum axis (added to and labeled in attached Figure 2 above) extends through the mount, the finger guard (labeled in attached Figure 2 above) and the handle (labeled in attached Figure 2 above)(shown in attached Figure 2 above).
Regarding Claim 22, Percy-Raine et al. teaches:
22. (New) The hand vacuum cleaner of claim 1 wherein the energy storage member housing (Stickney et al. – housing 40, labeled in attached Figure 2, 1, 6, and combined figure above) is generally L-shaped (best shown in attached Figure 6 above).
Regarding Claim 23, Percy-Raine et al. teaches:
23. (New) The hand vacuum cleaner of claim 22 wherein, in use, the energy storage member housing (Stickney et al. – housing 40, labeled in attached Figure 2, 1, 6, and combined figure above) forms a portion of a lower side of the base member (labeled in attached Figure 2, 1, and combined figure above) and is located at a front side of the base member (shown in attached Figure 2, 1, and combined figure above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8, 10, 12-15, and 17 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 similar arrangement of parts.
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