DETAILED ACTION
Priority
The claimed Foreign priority to CA 2599303 has been determined as improper because the FOR document does not disclose any of the inventions of the current application. The earliest claimed priority that does support the claimed and disclosed inventions of the current application is CA 2658005, filed 11 March 2009, which will be treated as the earliest priority date for the current application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 17 June 2024 and 11 December 2024 has/have been considered by the examiner. However, the examiner notes that the IDS documents include an extensive number of references, many/most of which have little to no relevance to the specifics of the claimed invention of the current application. Although the examiner has reviewed the applicant’s submitted references, the examiner does request that the applicant submit additional disclosure of any particularly relevant references to the current claimed invention for more focused review by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 4 and 14 are 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 limitations of both claims are effectively disclosed by the amended limitation of claims 1 and 11 that the dirt collection chamber and first stage air treatment chamber are opened concurrently when the front door is opened. 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 § 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, 2, 4, 9-12, 14, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al. (6,766,558).
Regarding claims 1 and 11 (only slightly differing from one another, with all limitations of both addressed below), Matsumoto discloses a hand vacuum cleaner (Fig. 26) comprising:(a) an airflow path from a dirty air inlet (anywhere along wand 3 or head 4) positioned at a front end of the hand vacuum cleaner to a clean air outlet positioned rearward of the dirty air inlet (although not shown, the clean air outlet would obviously be adjacent to the motor/fan 1a, which is rearward of the inlet due to no structure within the air treatment member 5 to direct outlet air from the motor/fan, and in view of common knowledge of general vacuum cleaner construction); (b) an air treatment assembly positioned in the airflow path (5), the embodiment of Fig. 26 not disclosing how the assembly is emptied, but Figs. 16-18 having alternative emptying configurations, including an openable door (8c in Fig. 18) defining a lower portion of the dirt collection portion 8), which is well known in the art to allow for quick and easy emptying of collected debris, such that it would have been obvious for the air treatment assembly of Fig. 26 to include a front openable door, the air treatment assembly (again referencing Fig. 16 for internal structure) comprises a first stage air treatment chamber (7) and a dirt collection chamber (8), the first stage air treatment chamber has an air treatment chamber air inlet (5a), an air treatment chamber air outlet (5b/10b), a front/first (lower as viewed in Fig. 16) end, a rear/second (upper) end and a longitudinal axis that extends between the front/first and rear/second ends of the air treatment assembly, the dirt collection chamber has a front/first (bottom as viewed in Fig. 16) end and an axially spaced apart rear/second end (at separator 9), wherein a first plane that is transverse to the longitudinal axis is located at the front end of the first stage air treatment assembly, a second plane that is transverse to the longitudinal axis is located at the front end of the dirt collection chamber, the first and second planes are axially spaced apart and opening the front openable door opens the front end of the dirt collection chamber; (c) a main body housing a motor and fan assembly (1a) that is positioned in the air flow path, the motor and fan assembly that is positioned in the air flow path and having a motor axis of rotation; and, (d) a handle (10a), wherein the longitudinal axis extends between the front/first end of the hand vacuum cleaner and a rear/second end of the hand vacuum cleaner.
Regarding the amendments to claims 1 and 11, as well as claims 4 and 14, when provided with the openable door (of alternative embodiment Figs. 16-18), as discussed above to empty the collected debris of Fig. 26 of Matsumoto, it would have been obvious either for the lower portion (55) to be removable from the remainder of the air treatment assembly, similar to Figs. 16-17 of Matsumoto, or to provide the bottom end of portion (55) with an openable door, similar to Fig. 18 of Matsumoto. In either case, the opening of the “door” will concurrently open the front end of the dirt collection chamber (51) and the first stage air treatment chamber (53) due to the first stage air treatment chamber being open on the bottom making the front end of the air treatment assembly accessible when the front door is opened (claims 4 and 14). Additionally, Matsumoto further disclose that a portion of the dirt collection chamber is located radially with respect to the first stage air treatment chamber at the rear end of the air treatment assembly (on the upper left side of Fig. 26).
Regarding claim 2, Matsumoto further discloses that the first plane is located at the front end of the first stage air treatment chamber is spaced axially inwardly from the second plane that is located at the front end of the dirt collection chamber.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Matsumoto further discloses that a dirt outlet (opening(s) 9a in separating wall 9, as shown in Figs. 6-10 for optional internal structure of the air treatment assembly of Fig. 25) connects the dirt collection chamber in communication with the first stage air treatment chamber.
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Matsumoto further discloses that the air treatment chamber has a rearwardly extending sidewall (external sidewall) and the rearwardly extending sidewall is moveable with respect to the main body (disclosure that “the coupling pipe 10b is coupled to the dust collecting part and directly coupled to the body” in Col. 10, lines 5-7, indicates that the pipe may be removed from the main body 1). Additionally, the examiner hereby takes official notice that it is old and well known for separate components of vacuum cleaners to be detachable from one another to allow for alternative configurations and/or to remove clogs in the system. Therefore, it further/alternatively would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure the connection pipe 10b to be removable from the air treatment assembly, at least to allow for alternative configurations, including the embodiment of Fig. 1, connected to a canister cleaner, or Fig. 25, connected to a handheld cleaner.
Regarding claim 12, Matsumoto further discloses that the first end of the first stage air treatment chamber is spaced axially inwardly from the first end of the dirt collection chamber.
Claims 3, 6, 13, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al. (6,766,558) as applied to claim 1 and in view of Conrad (2008/0172995).
Matsumoto discloses the vacuum cleaner as discussed supra, but fails to disclose the limitations of claims 3, 6, 13, 16 and 17. Conrad discloses another vacuum cleaner, having an alternative structure for the air treatment assembly, which includes a secondary air treatment chamber, which is understood to anyone f ordinary skill in the art to be more effective and efficient in removing debris from air flow, including smaller debris that may not be separated by a single air treatment chamber. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the air treatment assembly of Conrad in place of the assembly of Matsumoto, to improve effectiveness and efficiency of dust removal from the air flow.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, the air treatment assembly of Conrad includes an axially extending member (upright member having platform 68 thereon) extends between the front end of the first stage air treatment chamber and the front end of the dirt collection chamber.
Regarding claims 6, 16 and 17, the air treatment assembly of Conrad further includes a second stage air treatment chamber downstream from the first stage air treatment chamber, wherein the first stage air treatment chamber comprises a first stage cyclone chamber and the second stage air treatment chamber comprises a second stage cyclone chamber.
Regarding claims 8 and 18, the air treatment assembly of Conrad further includes a portion (upper end wall horizontally aligned with wall 80 defining the first stage chamber) of the dirt collection chamber located radially outwardly of the first stage air treatment chamber.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Although the examiner indicated during the interview that the proposed claim amendment would overcome the pending prior art rejections, the examiner did also indicate that the concepts were known in the art, and that further search and consideration would be necessary to determine patentability. During such review, the examiner has determined that Matsumoto does teach the amended limitations, as discussed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cheng (WO 2008/062168) discloses another air treatment assembly having similar structure as the applicant’s claimed invention, and also having a dirt collection chamber reading on the amended structure set forth in the currently pending independent claims.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 14 November 2025
Prosecution Insights