Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 14, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant's argument that Borg et al. (US 10724265 B2) is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Applicant argues that Borg is nonanalogous because “fluid flow[s] through the entire body 14” of Borg, whereas the claimed invention is a cleaning tool that collects liquid as described in paragraph 31 of the instant specification. (Remarks page 9). However, one of ordinary skill would have modified Grottodden’s (US 8381347 B2) cleaning tool, the “Preferred Embodiment” (Grottodden column 3, line 9–67; column 4, line 1–17; Fig. 1A-C), that already collects solid matter and liquid (and thereby prevents them from flowing out of the cleaning tool, while allowing air to flow through the suction pathway). The problem confronting the inventor would have been how to separate the solid matter from liquid, after they are suctioned together into the body of a cleaning tool. One of ordinary skill would have looked to pool cleaning art as reasonably pertinent to this problem because pool cleaning art commonly provides technology that separates solid matter from liquid, after they are suctioned together into the body or housing of a pool cleaner. Borg is one such pool cleaner. Upon putting inside Grottodden’s body (“reservoir 21”) Borg’s removable filter basket (“first filter 62” or “second filter 66”) to separate solid matter from liquid, one of ordinary skill would have known to leave the position of the adapter coupling (Grottodden’s “27 suction passage”) unchanged. In other words, one of ordinary skill would have known to put Borg’s removable filter basket (“first filter 62” or “second filter 66”) inside Grottodden’s body (“reservoir 21”), without relocating Grottodden’s adapter coupling (“27 suction passage”) to the same height level as the openings in Borg’s removable filter basket (“first filter 62” or “second filter 66”), thereby one of ordinary skill would have maintained the ability of Grottodden’s body (“reservoir 21”) to collect liquid.
Applicant argues that neither Borg nor Hui are analogous art because neither generate a working air stream (Remarks page 9). But Borg generates suction (“Main vac tube houses the venture jets and diverts the water back toward the canister” at column 9, line 60–61; Fig. 8) that one of ordinary skill would have recognized as pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor who starts with Grottodden’s “Preferred Embodiment”: how to separate solid matter from liquid, after they are suctioned together into the body of a cleaning tool. Whether Hui generates suction is moot because it is not relied upon to reject a claim in the instant office communication.
Applicant argues that Grottodden is “only sized to accommodate small chunks and, therefore, Grottodden is not concerned with a problem of larger debris, such as the debris associated with a swimming pool.” (Remarks page 10). Changes in size to accommodate targeted solid matter would have been obvious because Grottodden’s “Vacuum Attachment” would have been “capable of being scaled up” to accommodate targeted solid matter (MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A)).
Applicant argues that there is “no reasonable motivation to combine and modify” Grottodden with Borg because the modification “requires more time, effort, and resources (e.g., adding another filtering mechanism) without any real recognized advantage to doing so as Grottodden is already designed to minimize the amount of water droplets [or debris] from the airstream reaching the filter media 32 by the small size of the inlet nozzle 54 and the orientation and media type of the filter media 32.” (Remarks page 10). This argument is moot because the instant office communication does not rely on the embodiment of Borg that includes “filter media 32” to reject a claim.
In response to Applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In any event, this argument is moot because the instant office communication omits the following motivation, accused of hindsight reasoning: “introducing, or increasing the surface area of, mesh or filtering material; that in turn would have increased the overall surface area for filtering debris; and thus a stronger vacuum could have been drawn without either pulling debris into the suction pathway or decreasing the service interval of Grottodden’s ‘filter media 32’.” (Remarks page 20–21).
Applicant argues that Turner (US 20100192980 A1), Lee et al. (US 5210902 A), and Minerley (US 2693000 A) are references with features relied upon to reject a limitation, but that those features are within the housing or body of an extraction cleaner, whereas the claimed invention is a cleaning tool that is “an auxiliary component to the extraction cleaner,” and thus these references are “not relevant.” (Remarks page 12–14, 18–19, 22–23). Grottodden teaches a motivation to transfer technology from a “bulky and stationary” attachment, that removes liquid and separates it from air, to a “portable vacuum cleaner attachment” configured to do the same:
The following attachments are comprised of multiple components, mainly having inlet and outlet pipes, and a reservoir which separates from a cover. [0008] U.S. Pat. No. 4,179,769 to Lundquist (1979), [0009] U.S. Pat. No. 4,341,540 to Howerin (1982)
Although the liquid separators of the above cited references allow the vacuum unit to remove liquid, the attachments tend to be bulky and stationary, limiting the useful range of the vacuum cleaner. Additionally, the attachments are located between the vacuum unit and the end of the hose, requiring manipulation of two separate hoses to connect and detach the separator.
It would therefore be desirable to have a portable vacuum cleaner attachment that can remove and separate liquid, and be easily detachable from the end of the vacuum hose. The following attachments meet that requirement:
U.S. Pat. No. 6,687,952 to Mohan, Jr. (2004),
U.S. Pat. No. 4,675,936 to Rawlins (1987),
U.S. Pat. No. 5,263,224 to Lovelady (1993),
U.S. Pat. No. 5,634,238 to McCaffrey et al. (1997),
U.S. Pat. No. 5,974,624 to Eisen (1999)
The above attachments all have one or more internal baffles or deflectors to form internal air passages, . . . .
(column 1, line 21–43). This teaching would have also motivated transfer of technology from, a “bulky and stationary” body or housing that suctions liquid and solid matter, that separates them, but that additionally integrates a suction source, to a “portable vacuum cleaner attachment” that does the same except that it lacks an integrated suction source—whether or not a suction source is integrated into a device that separates solid matter from liquid, each variant relies on a downstream suction source to suction solid matter and liquid.
Setting aside that a dependent claim may be patentably distinguished over a reference because a claim on which it depends is patentably distinguished over prior art, an argument is conclusory and unpersuasive if it merely states that the reference “fails to remedy” shortcomings of another reference. For example, Robinson (in the instant and previous action on the merits) teaches claim 3 limitation, “filter material comprises a pore size in a range of 40-100 pm.” But the instant Remarks only rely on arguments to disqualify references other than Robinson in order to disqualify Robinson itself, and thus the following conclusory statement is unpersuasive to patentably distinguish the particular claim 3 limitation over Robinson:
Robinson is generally directed to an apparatus and method for cleaning hard surface flooring and fails to remedy the shortcomings of Grottodden, Borg and Hui to disclose "a filter basket disposed within the tool interior and including a filter material configured to capture debris within the filter basket while allowing air and liquid to flow through the filter material," as set forth in amended claim 1.
(Remarks page 11–12).
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 “fluid delivery system that distributes cleaning fluid to a surface,” recited in claims 1, 11, and 17, must be shown or indicated by reference characters 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Related to the drawing objection above, the specification does not state a reference character, that is in a drawing and that indicates the claimed “fluid delivery system that distributes cleaning fluid to a surface,” recited in claims 1, 11, and 17. The feature(s) may be canceled from the claim(s).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 4–8, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grottodden (US 8381347 B2) in view of McCaffrey (US 5634238 A) and Ortega (US 2731103 A).
As to claim 1, Grottodden teaches some limitations of an extraction cleaner, including an accessory hose (“vacuum hose” in column 2, line 58) and a suction source (“suction created by the vacuum cleaner draws air through the attachment” in column 3, line 60–61) configured to generate a working air stream, and Grottodden also teaches that the extraction cleaner comprises:
the accessory hose in fluid communication with the suction source (column 3, line 58–61) and thus also the accessory hose defines a suction pathway from the extraction cleaner to a cleaning tool; and
some limitations of the cleaning tool (“Vacuum Attachment for the Collection of Liquids” or “attachment” of Fig. 1A–1C; column 2, line 30–67; column 3; column 4, line 1–17) adapted to couple with the accessory hose, comprising:
some limitations of a tool housing (“Vacuum Attachment for the Collection of Liquids” or “attachment” of Fig. 1A–1C; column 2, line 30–67; column 3; column 4, line 1–17) defining a suction pathway (pathway created by interior of “reservoir 21, suction port 23, suction passage 27, and inlet nozzle 54,” column 3, line 17–20) in fluid communication with the suction source, comprising:
a body (“reservoir 21”) defining a tool interior (interior of “reservoir 21”);
a suction nozzle (“nozzle inlet 54”) defining a tool nozzle inlet (vicinity of structure labeled “N,” which is a portion of “nozzle inlet 54,” in Fig. 1A, 1C) in communication with the suction pathway; and
an adapter coupling (“suction port 23”) defining an outlet (column 3, line 58–61) to the suction pathway and configured to selectively couple the tool with the accessory hose (column 3, line 23–24).
PNG
media_image1.png
452
747
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1C of Grottodden.
Grottodden does not teach all limitations of the cleaning tool because Grottoden does not expressly teach a fluid delivery system, nor that the body defines an access opening to a tool interior, nor that the cleaning tool comprises a filter basket.
Grottodden references McCaffrey, that teaches “a portable vacuum cleaner attachment that can remove and separate liquid, and be easily detachable from the end of the vacuum hose.” (Grottodden column 1, line 33–35). McCaffrey also teaches a housing including a recovery assembly and a fluid delivery system that distributes cleaning fluid to a surface, and that the accessory hose defines a fluid delivery pathway from the extraction cleaner to the cleaning tool:
The accompanying drawings illustrate a hand-held suction pick-up head for use as an accessory attachment with a conventional vacuum cleaner. The suction head 10 is intended for the purpose of picking up relatively small quantities of cleaning liquid, e.g. typically about 200 c.cs, as may be applied to a localised area of a carpet or other floor covering for the purpose of removing localised heavy soiling. In the embodiment illustrated, the suction head is not provided with any means for delivering a cleaning liquid, and it is intended that the same would be applied manually by the user. However, it will be appreciated that the cleaning head as illustrated could be modified to include liquid delivery, means of any appropriate kind, either from a suitable reservoir container formed or provided on the head itself, or from a separate reservoir by means of an appropriate supply pipe. The head can, of course, also be used for picking up small spillages of liquid as well as the cleaning liquid.
(McCaffrey column 2, line 28–45).
Ortega teaches some limitations of an extraction cleaner (“device for removing water from floors or other surfaces during and after the washing process, . . . which comprises a housing 15 formed by a lower receptacle 20 in which water may accumulate” at column 2, line 27–31). Ortega also teaches a suction pathway from the extraction cleaner to an “end fitting 52a.” (column 3, line 33–39). Ortega also teaches a filter basket (“inner receptacle 40 is composed of an upper imperforate part 44 and a lower perforated part 45”; Fig. 3) disposed within “housing 15” and including a filter material configured to capture debris within the filter basket while allowing air and liquid to flow through the filter material:
The inner receptacle 40 is composed of an upper imperforate part 44 and a lower perforated part 45 suitably joined by the rivets 46 as best seen in Fig. 3. A filter liner 47 of paper or other suitable filtering material is placed adjacent the inner surface of the receptacle 40.
. . .
4. A cleaning device for removing matter from floors or other surfaces comprising, in combination, a main receptacle adapted to accumulate matter within the interior thereof; . . . inlet means communicating with the interior of said container for delivering matter thereto; . . . energization of said suction producing means being operative to cause a mixture of air and matter to be drawn through said inlet means into the interior of said container, the matter accumulating in said container and the air being drawn through the port of said labyrinth into the intake opening of said suction producing means; a foraminous casing having an interior surface and an exterior surface; said casing being removably supported within said container and disposed in the path of flow of said matter between said inlet means and said inlet port; and filter means associated with one of said surfaces of said casing, said inlet means being operative to introduce air-entrained matter to only one surface of said casing, whereby air entering said container under action of said suction producing means is operative to penetrate both said casing and said associated filter means while dirt and dust particles are prevented from passing therethrough and are retained within said container; said inlet means being effective to deliver matter only to the exterior of said casing, whereby entrained dust particles are excluded from the interior of said casing by said filter means while air is permitted to pass through both said casing and filter means and through said inlet port under action of said suction producing means.
5. A cleaning device as set forth in claim 4, wherein said foraminous casing is supported a substantial distance above the bottom of said receptacle, said inlet means communicating directly with the space defined by said receptacle and said foraminous casing for delivering said matter to said defined space; whereby liquid may be accumulated in said space while said foraminous casing remains within said container and spaced from the liquid so accumulated.
(column 6, line 38–42; Fig. 3) (emphasis added).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grottodden, by employing as taught by McCaffrey, a housing including a recovery assembly and a fluid delivery system that distributes cleaning fluid to a surface: to conveniently switch back and forth using a single assembly, between applying cleaning fluid and suctioning up the cleaning fluid.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Grottodden, already modified by the preceding paragraph, by employing a body defining an access opening to a tool interior, because such a modification makes the body separable, and that would have been obvious to provide convenient access to scrub clean the interior of the body. MPEP 2144.04 (V)(C).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Grottodden, already modified by the preceding paragraph, by employing as taught by Ortega, a filter basket disposed within the tool interior and including a filter material configured to capture debris within the filter basket while allowing air and liquid to flow through the filter material: to facilitate disposal of solid matter separately from that of liquid disposal, pouring liquid down a drain, while dumping solid matter into the trash; or to facilitate recovery of a valuable from a suctioned combination of liquid and solid matter (for example, recovery of a ring or coin from a spill of liquid containing solid matter/debris).
As to claim 4, Grottodden as modified to reject claim 1 above, appears to already teach that the first body portion is removable from a second body portion because Grottoden, modified to reject claim 1, teaches a body defining an access opening to a tool interior.
In any event, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Grottodden, already modified to reject claim 1, by configuring the body to comprise a second body portion removable from a first body portion, thereby providing selective access to debris or recovered fluid disposed within the tool interior through the access opening, because such a modification makes the body separable, and that would have been obvious to provide convenient access to scrub clean the interior of the body. MPEP 2144.04 (V)(C).
As to claim 5, Grottodden as modified to reject claim 1 above, teaches the filter basket, tool housing, and access opening, but fails to teach that the filter basket is removable from the tool housing.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Grottodden, already modified to reject claim 1, by making the filter basket removable from the tool housing through the access opening, because such a modification makes the filter basket separable from the tool housing, and that would have been obvious: to facilitate disposal of solid matter separately from that of liquid disposal, pouring liquid down a drain, while dumping solid matter into the trash; or to facilitate recovery of a valuable from a suctioned combination of liquid and solid matter (for example, recovery of a ring or coin from a spill of liquid containing solid matter/debris). MPEP 2144.04 (V)(C).
As to claim 6, Grottodden as modified to reject claim 1 above, teaches the filter basket and the body, but fails to teach engagement features of the filter basket.
Ortega teaches that the filter basket (“inner receptacle 40” comprising “filter liner 47”) comprises engagement features (“upper edge 47a” engages the “receptacle part 44” and “a clamping cover disc 48” of the “cover 21”) configured to uncouple the filter basket from the body. (column 6, line 39–49).
The said filter liner 47 is held in position by turning the upper edge 47a thereof over the upper free edge of the receptacle part 44 and held in position by the upward pressure of the spring 42 against a clamping cover disc 48. In order to remove and replace the filter liner 47 it is merely necessary to remove the cover 21, to which the ring 48 is attached and raise the ring 48.
(column 6, line 43–49). Ortega also teaches engagement features (“toggle catch member 25”) of the body (“cover 21” and “lower receptacle 20”) that houses the filter basket:
To maintain the cover 21 in locked position on the lower receptacle 20 and at the same time to permit its quick and easy release for purposes which will soon become apparent I provide a pair of toggle catches 25 on opposite sides of the receptacle 20. Each toggle catch member 25 comprises operating levers 26 and hooks 27. The levers 26 are so constructed that when pressed inwardly towards the sides of the receptacle 20 the hooks 27 are brought to bear downwardly on the upper edge of the peripherally enlarged portion 24 of the cover 21. The downward and radially inward slope of the interconnecting material 24a provides a suitable surface for engagement with the hooks 27 in such manner that they will not slip off until the operating levers 26 are moved upwardly to -release the hooks 27.
It is thus seen from the above described construction that when the toggle catches 25 are closed, the gasket 23 will be compressed between the receptacle 20 and the cover 21 to provide an effective seal to prevent the surrounding air from entering the closed chamber during the operation of the apparatus. To remove the cover 21 for any desired purpose it is merely necessary to open the toggle catches 25 and disengage the hooks 27 from the peripheral portion 24 by pulling the levers 26 outwardly, and upwardly.
(column 2, line 45–69).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Grottodden, already modified to reject claim 1, by employing as taught by Ortega, engagement features configured to uncouple the filter basket from the body: to prevent as suggested by Ortega, fluid bypass of the filter basket after the fluid has entered the filter basket; or to selectively secure the filter basket to the body, that in turn would have caused less play between a filter basket and body made less costly by designing a looser fit between them, or would have caused the cleaning tool to operate more quietly, or shake less, than without the engagement features.
As to claim 7, Grottodden as modified to reject claim 1 above, teaches the filter basket and the body, but fails to teach a space.
Ortega teaches a space between a bottom surface of the filter basket and an interior surface of the body:
Disposed within the lower receptacle 20 is an inner receptacle 40 conforming generally to the shape of the receptacle 20, but of smaller size so as to provide an annular space S between the inner receptacle 40 and the outer receptacle 20. Circumferentially spaced abutment members 41 carried by the inner receptacle 40 serve to maintain the inner receptacle 40 against displacement with respect to the surrounding side wall 20a of the receptacle 20. A coil spring member 42 interposed between the bottom wall 20b of the receptacle 20 and the bottom wall of the inner receptacle 40 maintains the said inner receptacle spaced from the said bottom wall 20b. It is noted that the space S communicates directly with the hollow area 43 in the cover 21.
. . .
[w]hen the pump 60 is set in operation to produce a suction force in the hollow chamber 43 of the cover 21 and a vacuum created therein, as here in before described, air from within the inner receptacle 40 will be drawn out through the filter 47 and the perforated part 45 to enter the space S, from where it will be drawn into the hollow chamber 43 and exhausted as previously described. Therefore any dust drawn into the inner receptacle 40 through the pipe 50 will be captively accumulated and held therein because of the filter 47 thus leaving the space S free of any dust, and as a consequence the dust will not be drawn into the pump.
(column 6, line 22–35, 53–65) (emphasis added).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Grottodden, already modified to reject claim 1, by employing as taught by Ortega, a space between a bottom surface of the filter basket and an interior surface of the body: to separate as taught by Ortega, dust in the filter basket from air that flows into and through the filter basket.
As to claim 8, Grottodden already teaches that the tool housing includes a window and the tool interior is viewable therethrough: “The attachment may be composed of a transparent or translucent plastic, enabling the user to see the liquid level in the reservoir 21.” (column 3, line 20–22).
As to claim 11, Grottodden teaches some limitations of a cleaning tool (“Vacuum Attachment for the Collection of Liquids” or “attachment” of Fig. 1A–1C; column 2, line 30–67; column 3; column 4, line 1–17), including that the cleaning tool is adapted to couple with a hose (“vacuum hose” in column 3, line 58) of an extraction cleaner (“commercially available vacuum cleaner” or “vacuum cleaner”) including a suction source (“suction created by the vacuum cleaner draws air through the attachment” in column 3, line 60–61) configured to generate a working air stream, and Grottodden also teaches that the cleaning tool comprises:
some limitations of a tool housing defining a suction pathway (pathway created by interior of “reservoir 21, suction port 23, suction passage 27, and inlet nozzle 54,” column 3, line 17–20), comprising:
a body (“reservoir 21”);
a tool interior (interior of “reservoir 21”);
a suction nozzle (“nozzle inlet 54”) defining a tool nozzle inlet that directs the working air stream from the suction pathway into the cleaning tool (vicinity of structure labeled “N,” which is a portion of “nozzle inlet 54,” in Fig. 1A, 1C); and
an adapter coupling (“suction port 23”) configured to selectively attach the cleaning tool to the hose (column 3, line 23–24), the adapter coupling defining an outlet (column 3, line 58–61) to the suction pathway.
PNG
media_image1.png
452
747
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1C of Grottodden.
Grottodden does not teach all limitations of the cleaning tool because Grottodden does not expressly teach a fluid delivery system, nor that the body defines an access opening to a tool interior, nor that the cleaning tool comprises a filter basket.
Grottodden references McCaffrey, that teaches “a portable vacuum cleaner attachment that can remove and separate liquid, and be easily detachable from the end of the vacuum hose.” (Grottodden column 1, line 33–35). McCaffrey also teaches that the cleaning tool includes a fluid delivery system that distributes cleaning fluid to a surface:
The accompanying drawings illustrate a hand-held suction pick-up head for use as an accessory attachment with a conventional vacuum cleaner. The suction head 10 is intended for the purpose of picking up relatively small quantities of cleaning liquid, e.g. typically about 200 c.cs, as may be applied to a localised area of a carpet or other floor covering for the purpose of removing localised heavy soiling. In the embodiment illustrated, the suction head is not provided with any means for delivering a cleaning liquid, and it is intended that the same would be applied manually by the user. However, it will be appreciated that the cleaning head as illustrated could be modified to include liquid delivery, means of any appropriate kind, either from a suitable reservoir container formed or provided on the head itself, or from a separate reservoir by means of an appropriate supply pipe. The head can, of course, also be used for picking up small spillages of liquid as well as the cleaning liquid.
(McCaffrey column 2, line 28–45).
Ortega teaches an extraction cleaner (“device for removing water from floors or other surfaces during and after the washing process, . . . which comprises a housing 15 formed by a lower receptacle 20 in which water may accumulate” at column 2, line 27–31). Ortega also teaches an extraction cleaner including a suction source configured to generate a working air stream. (column 3, line 26–39). Ortega also teaches a filter basket (“inner receptacle 40 is composed of an upper imperforate part 44 and a lower perforated part 45”; Fig. 3) disposed within “housing 15” and configured to collect debris within the filter basket while allowing air and liquid to flow through the filter material:
The inner receptacle 40 is composed of an upper imperforate part 44 and a lower perforated part 45 suitably joined by the rivets 46 as best seen in Fig. 3. A filter liner 47 of paper or other suitable filtering material is placed adjacent the inner surface of the receptacle 40.
. . .
4. A cleaning device for removing matter from floors or other surfaces comprising, in combination, a main receptacle adapted to accumulate matter within the interior thereof; . . . inlet means communicating with the interior of said container for delivering matter thereto; . . . energization of said suction producing means being operative to cause a mixture of air and matter to be drawn through said inlet means into the interior of said container, the matter accumulating in said container and the air being drawn through the port of said labyrinth into the intake opening of said suction producing means; a foraminous casing having an interior surface and an exterior surface; said casing being removably supported within said container and disposed in the path of flow of said matter between said inlet means and said inlet port; and filter means associated with one of said surfaces of said casing, said inlet means being operative to introduce air-entrained matter to only one surface of said casing, whereby air entering said container under action of said suction producing means is operative to penetrate both said casing and said associated filter means while dirt and dust particles are prevented from passing therethrough and are retained within said container; said inlet means being effective to deliver matter only to the exterior of said casing, whereby entrained dust particles are excluded from the interior of said casing by said filter means while air is permitted to pass through both said casing and filter means and through said inlet port under action of said suction producing means.
5. A cleaning device as set forth in claim 4, wherein said foraminous casing is supported a substantial distance above the bottom of said receptacle, said inlet means communicating directly with the space defined by said receptacle and said foraminous casing for delivering said matter to said defined space; whereby liquid may be accumulated in said space while said foraminous casing remains within said container and spaced from the liquid so accumulated.
(column 6, line 38–42; Fig. 3) (emphasis added).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grottodden, by employing as taught by McCaffrey, an extraction cleaner including a fluid delivery system that distributes cleaning fluid to a surface: to conveniently switch back and forth using a single assembly, between applying cleaning fluid and suctioning up the cleaning fluid.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Grottodden, already modified by the preceding paragraph, by employing a body defining an access opening to a tool interior, because such a modification makes the body separable, and that would have been obvious to provide convenient access to scrub clean the interior of the body. MPEP 2144.04 (V)(C).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Grottodden, already modified by the preceding paragraph, by employing as taught by Ortega, a filter basket disposed within the tool interior and configured to capture debris within the filter basket while allowing air and liquid to flow through the filter basket: to facilitate disposal of solid matter separately from that of liquid disposal, pouring liquid down a drain, while dumping solid matter into the trash; or to facilitate recovery of a valuable from a suctioned combination of liquid and solid matter (for example, recovery of a ring or coin from a spill of liquid containing solid matter/debris).
As to claim 14, Grottodden as modified to reject claim 11 above, appears to already teach that the first body portion is removable from a second body portion because Grottoden, modified to reject claim 1, teaches a body defining an access opening to a tool interior.
In any event, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Grottodden, already modified to reject claim 11, by configuring the body to comprise a second body portion removable from a first body portion, thereby providing selective access to debris or recovered fluid disposed within the tool interior through the access opening, because such a modification makes the body separable, and that would have been obvious to provide convenient access to scrub clean the interior of the body. MPEP 2144.04 (V)(C).
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grottodden, McCaffrey, and Ortega, and further in view of the machine-generated translation into English of Park (KR 20060061716 A). Please note that a citation to Park is to only the machine-generated translation into English of Park, except that a citation to a Park figure is a to the original Park patent document.
As to claim 2, Grottodden as modified to reject claim 1 above, teaches the filter basket and filter material but not a frame.
Park teaches a filter basket that includes a frame (“filter guide rib (142)”) defining frame openings (“openings (143)”) and the filter material (“filter (141) is formed with a mesh structure”) is disposed within the frame openings:
And, as shown in FIG. 3, the filter member (140) includes a filter (141) and a filter guide rib (142) that supports the filter (141). The filter (141) is formed with a mesh structure that allows air to pass through but prevents dirt such as dust from passing through. And, the filter guide rib (142) supports the filter (141) and forms a plurality of openings (143). Accordingly, the air sucked in through the inlet port (131) is filtered by the filter (141) and discharged into the motor room (13) through the opening (143) and the outlet port (132).
(page 10).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Grottodden, already modified to reject claim 1, by employing as taught by Park, a filter basket that includes a frame (“filter guide rib (142)”) defining frame openings (“openings (143)”) and the filter material (“filter (141) is formed with a mesh structure”) is disposed within the frame openings: to increase support for the filter material and thereby the filter basket withstands a stronger suction without failing, compared to a filter basket with no frame.
As to claim 12, Grottodden as modified to reject claim 11 above, teaches the filter basket and filter material but not a frame.
Park teaches a filter basket that includes a frame (“filter guide rib (142)”) defining frame openings (“openings (143)”) and the filter material (“filter (141) is formed with a mesh structure”) is disposed within the frame openings:
And, as shown in FIG. 3, the filter member (140) includes a filter (141) and a filter guide rib (142) that supports the filter (141). The filter (141) is formed with a mesh structure that allows air to pass through but prevents dirt such as dust from passing through. And, the filter guide rib (142) supports the filter (141) and forms a plurality of openings (143). Accordingly, the air sucked in through the inlet port (131) is filtered by the filter (141) and discharged into the motor room (13) through the opening (143) and the outlet port (132).
(page 10).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Grottodden, already modified to reject claim 1, by employing as taught by Park, a filter basket that includes a frame (“filter guide rib (142)”) defining frame openings (“openings (143)”) and the filter material (“filter (141) is formed with a mesh structure”) is disposed within the frame openings: to increase support for the filter material and thereby the filter basket withstands a stronger suction without failing, compared to a filter basket with no frame.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grottodden, McCaffrey, and Ortega; and further in view of Robinson (WO 2015176052 A1).
As to claim 3, Grottodden as modified to reject claim 1 above, does not teach filter material of a pore size in a range of 40–100 microns. Robinson does.
Robinson teaches filter material (“bag filter 74”) comprising a pore size of “25 microns to about 300 microns.” (paragraph 36–37). Not only, Robinson teaches that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to experiment with different pore sizes to determine a pore size suitable to a particular debris size targeted for removal from a liquid, or in other words, selecting a pore size "based on the nature or characteristics of the soil(s) to be removed from a particular area or areas of hard surface flooring (e.g., size(s) of the soil particles).” (paragraph 37).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Grottodden, already modified to reject claim 1, by selecting as taught by Robinson, a filter material having a pore size in a range of 40–100 microns: to find as taught by Robinson, a pore size that blocks targeted debris (Robinson paragraph 37). Moreover Robinson teaches that “bag filter 74” allows liquid to pass through while blocking debris (paragraph 38), just as the claimed filter basket. Discovering the optimum or workable ranges would have involved only routine experimentation where, like here, the general conditions of a claim were disclosed in prior art. MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). Furthermore, the claimed range is deemed to have been known by a person of ordinary skill because the instant specification does not include criticality of the claimed range, nor does the specification attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to the claimed range. MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grottodden in view of McCaffrey and Ortega, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 5210902 A).
As to claim 9, Grottodden as modified to reject claim 1 above, does not teach a baffle.
Lee, however, teaches a baffle (“air-liquid separation surface 218,” “second air-liquid separation surface 220,” or “downwardly extending protrusion 221”) disposed within the tool interior (interior of “cover unit 214” and “cylindrical main container 210”) configured to direct liquid away from the outlet to the suction pathway (“air outlet 216”). (column 5, line 42–65; Fig. 5). Lee teaches the benefit of a baffle:
To facilitate separation of entrained liquid droplets from the incoming air through the inlet 215, the cover unit 214 includes an air-liquid separation surface 218 disposed near and directly above the outlet 217a of deflecting pipe 217. Accordingly, air and liquid upwardly projecting through the outlet 217a of deflecting pipe 217 impinge against the air-liquid separation surface 218, so that liquid can be separated from air. The separated liquid is received in the main container 210, through the liquid inlet 213 of cover plate 212, while air flows toward the air outlet 216. At this time, the air may includes small droplets which were not separated therefrom by the air-liquid separation surface 218. In order to completely separate these small droplets from air, there is a second air-liquid separation surface 220 at downstream of the separation surface 218. The separation surface 220 is comprised of a sharply inclined surface formed by upwardly extending a portion of the cover plate 212 to the height higher than that of the peripheral edge of first separation surface 218. In order to more facilitate the separation of entrained droplets from air, the cover unit 214 has a downwardly extending protrusion 221 disposed near the second separation surface 220.
(column 5, line 42–65) (emphasis added). Because the baffles of Lee direct liquid away from the outlet to the suction pathway, a person of ordinary skill would have understood that the baffles of Lee would also have directed away debris.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Grottodden, already modified to reject claim 1, by disposing as taught by Lee, a baffle within the tool interior: to increase as taught by Lee, separation of air entrained liquid droplets from air entering the filter receptacle.
As to claim 15, Grottodden as modified to reject claim 11 above, does not teach a baffle.
Lee, however, teaches a baffle (“air-liquid separation surface 218,” “second air-liquid separation surface 220,” or “downwardly extending protrusion 221”) disposed within the tool interior (interior of “cover unit 214” and “cylindrical main container 210”) configured to direct liquid away from the outlet to the suction pathway (“air outlet 216”). (column 5, line 42–65; Fig. 5). Lee teaches the benefit of a baffle:
To facilitate separation of entrained liquid droplets from the incoming air through the inlet 215, the cover unit 214 includes an air-liquid separation surface 218 disposed near and directly above the outlet 217a of deflecting pipe 217. Accordingly, air and liquid upwardly projecting through the outlet 217a of deflecting pipe 217 impinge against the air-liquid separation surface 218, so that liquid can be separated from air. The separated liquid is received in the main container 210, through the liquid inlet 213 of cover plate 212, while air flows toward the air outlet 216. At this time, the air may includes small droplets which were not separated therefrom by the air-liquid separation surface 218. In order to completely separate these small droplets from air, there is a second air-liquid separation surface 220 at downstream of the separation surface 218. The separation surface 220 is comprised of a sharply inclined surface formed by upwardly extending a portion of the cover plate 212 to the height higher than that of the peripheral edge of first separation surface 218. In order to more facilitate the separation of entrained droplets from air, the cover unit 214 has a downwardly extending protrusion 221 disposed near the second separation surface 220.
(column 5, line 42–65) (emphasis added). Because the baffles of Lee direct liquid away from the outlet to the suction pathway, a person of ordinary skill would have understood that the baffles of Lee would also have directed away debris.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Grottodden, already modified to reject claim 11, by disposing as taught by Lee, a baffle within the tool interior: to increase as taught by Lee, separation of air entrained liquid droplets from air entering the filter receptacle.
Claims 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grottodden in view of McCaffrey, Ortega, and Lee, as applied above to reject claim 9 above; and further in view of Minerley (US 2693000 A).
As to claim 10, Grottodden as modified to reject claim 9 above, teaches the body and a first baffle but not that the first baffle is coupled with an upper interior surface of the body. Also, Grottoden as modified to reject claim 9, does not teach a second baffle coupled with a lower interior surface of the body.
Lee, however, teaches a first baffle (“air-liquid separation surface 218” or “downwardly extending protrusion 221”) coupled with an upper interior surface of the body (“cover unit 214”). (column 5, line 42–52, 61–65; Fig. 5).
Minerley teaches a second baffle (“baffle plate 43,” “baffle plate 44,” or “baffle plate 45”) coupled with a lower interior surface of the body (“tank 10”). (column 3, line 17–21, 31–35, 42–47; Fig. 1–2, 4).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grottodden, already modified to reject claim 9, by including as taught by Lee, a first baffle coupled with an upper interior surface of the body; and by including as taught by Minerley, a second baffle coupled with a lower interior surface of the body: to prevent, or increase the difficulty with which, liquid would have been suctioned into the components of the suction source, like a fan of a vacuum cleaner motor (Minerley column 3, line 8–18); or to “facilitate separation of entrained liquid droplets” from air entering the interior of the cleaning tool (Lee column 5, line 42–52, 61–65); or to form a “labyrinth” of baffles that would have reduced the risk that liquid enter into the suction source (Minerley column 3, line 48–52).
As to claim 16, Grottodden as modified to reject claim 15 above, teaches the body and a first baffle but not that the first baffle is coupled with an upper interior surface of the body. Also, Grottodden as modified to reject claim 15, does not teach a second baffle coupled with a lower interior surface of the body.
Lee, however, teaches a first baffle (“air-liquid separation surface 218” or “downwardly extending protrusion 221”) coupled with an upper interior surface of the body (“cover unit 214”). (column 5, line 42–52, 61–65; Fig. 5).
Minerley teaches a second baffle (“baffle plate 43,” “baffle plate 44,” or “baffle plate 45”) coupled with a lower interior surface of the body (“tank 10”). (column 3, line 17–21, 31–35, 42–47; Fig. 1–2, 4).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grottodden, already modified to reject claim 15, by including as taught by Lee, a first baffle coupled with an upper interior surface of the body; and by including as taught by Minerley, a second baffle coupled with a lower interior surface of the body: to prevent, or increase the difficulty with which, liquid would have been suctioned into the components of the suction source, like a fan of a vacuum cleaner motor (Minerley column 3, line 8–18); or to “facilitate separation of entrained liquid droplets” from air entering the interior of the cleaning tool (Lee column 5, line 42–52, 61–65); or to form a “labyrinth” of baffles that would have reduced the risk that liquid enter into the suction source (Minerley column 3, line 48–52).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grottodden, McCaffrey, Ortega, and the machine-generated translation into English of Park; and further in view of Robinson. lease note that a citation to Park is to only the machine-generated translation into English of Park, except that a citation to a Park figure is a to the original Park patent document.
As to claim 13, Grottodden as modified to reject claim 12 above, does not teach filter material of a pore size of 50 microns or less. Robinson does.
Robinson teaches filter material (“bag filter 74”) comprising a pore size of “25 microns to about 300 microns.” (paragraph 36–37). Not only, Robinson teaches that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to experiment with different pore sizes to determine a pore size suitable to a particular debris size targeted for removal from a liquid, or in other words, selecting a pore size "based on the nature or characteristics of the soil(s) to be removed from a particular area or areas of hard surface flooring (e.g., size(s) of the soil particles).” (paragraph 37).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Grottodden, already modified to reject claim 12, by selecting as taught by Robinson, a filter material having a pore size 50 microns or less: to find as taught by Robinson, a pore size that blocks targeted debris (Robinson paragraph 37). Moreover, Robinson teaches that “bag filter 74” allows liquid to pass through while blocking debris (paragraph 38), just as the claimed filter basket. Discovering the optimum or workable ranges would have involved only routine experimentation where, like here, the general conditions of a claim were disclosed in prior art. MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). Furthermore, the claimed range is deemed to have been known by a person of ordinary skill because the specification does not include criticality of the claimed range, nor does the specification attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to the claimed range. MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grottodden in view of McCaffrey, Ortega, and Eisen (US 5974624 A).
As to claim 17, Grottodden teaches some limitations of a cleaning tool (“Vacuum Attachment for the Collection of Liquids” or “attachment” of Fig. 1A–1C; column 2, line 30–67; column 3; column 4, line 1–17), for selective attachment to an extraction cleaner (“commercially available vacuum cleaner” or “vacuum cleaner” in column 3, line 60–61) including an accessory hose (“vacuum hose”) and a suction source (“suction created by the vacuum cleaner draws air through the attachment”) configured to generate a working air stream, comprising:
some limitations of a tool housing (“Vacuum Attachment for the Collection of Liquids” in column 3, line 10–11, or “attachment” in column 3, line 13; different embodiments of the “attachment” in Fig. 1A–1C) defining a suction pathway (pathway created by interior of “reservoir 21, suction port 23, suction passage 27, and inlet nozzle 54,” column 3, line 17–20), comprising:
a body (“reservoir 21”) defining a tool interior (interior of “reservoir 21”);
a suction nozzle (“nozzle inlet 54”) disposed at a forward portion of the tool housing and defining a tool nozzle inlet (vicinity of structure labeled “N,” which is a portion of “nozzle inlet 54,” in Fig. 1A, 1C, 2C–3A) that directs the working air stream from the suction pathway into the cleaning tool (vicinity of structure labeled “N,” which is a portion of “nozzle inlet 54,” in Fig. 1A, 1C); and
an adapter coupling (“suction port 23”) configured to selectively couple the tool to the accessory hose (column 3, line 23–24) and defining an outlet (column 3, line 58–61) to the suction pathway.
PNG
media_image1.png
452
747
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1C of Grottodden.
Grottodden references McCaffrey, that teaches “a portable vacuum cleaner attachment that can remove and separate liquid, and be easily detachable from the end of the vacuum hose.” (Grottodden column 1, line 33–35). McCaffrey also teaches that the cleaning tool includes a fluid delivery system that distributes cleaning fluid to a surface:
The accompanying drawings illustrate a hand-held suction pick-up head for use as an accessory attachment with a conventional vacuum cleaner. The suction head 10 is intended for the purpose of picking up relatively small quantities of cleaning liquid, e.g. typically about 200 c.cs, as may be applied to a localised area of a carpet or other floor covering for the purpose of removing localised heavy soiling. In the embodiment illustrated, the suction head is not provided with any means for delivering a cleaning liquid, and it is intended that the same would be applied manually by the user. However, it will be appreciated that the cleaning head as illustrated could be modified to include liquid delivery, means of any appropriate kind, either from a suitable reservoir container formed or provided on the head itself, or from a separate reservoir by means of an appropriate supply pipe. The head can, of course, also be used for picking up small spillages of liquid as well as the cleaning liquid.
(McCaffrey column 2, line 28–45).
Ortega teaches an extraction cleaner (“device for removing water from floors or other surfaces during and after the washing process, . . . which comprises a housing 15 formed by a lower receptacle 20 in which water may accumulate” at column 2, line 27–31). Ortega also teaches an extraction cleaner including a suction source configured to generate a working air stream. (column 3, line 26–39). Ortega also teaches a filter basket (“inner receptacle 40 is composed of an upper imperforate part 44 and a lower perforated part 45”; Fig. 3) disposed within “housing 15” and configured to collect debris within the filter basket while allowing air and liquid to flow through the filter material:
The inner receptacle 40 is composed of an upper imperforate part 44 and a lower perforated part 45 suitably joined by the rivets 46 as best seen in Fig. 3. A filter liner 47 of paper or other suitable filtering material is placed adjacent the inner surface of the receptacle 40.
. . .
4. A cleaning device for removing matter from floors or other surfaces comprising, in combination, a main receptacle adapted to accumulate matter within the interior thereof; . . . inlet means communicating with the interior of said container for delivering matter thereto; . . . energization of said suction producing means being operative to cause a mixture of air and matter to be drawn through said inlet means into the interior of said container, the matter accumulating in said container and the air being drawn through the port of said labyrinth into the intake opening of said suction producing means; a foraminous casing having an interior surface and an exterior surface; said casing being removably supported within said container and disposed in the path of flow of said matter between said inlet means and said inlet port; and filter means associated with one of said surfaces of said casing, said inlet means being operative to introduce air-entrained matter to only one surface of said casing, whereby air entering said container under action of said suction producing means is operative to penetrate both said casing and said associated filter means while dirt and dust particles are prevented from passing therethrough and are retained within said container; said inlet means being effective to deliver matter only to the exterior of said casing, whereby entrained dust particles are excluded from the interior of said casing by said filter means while air is permitted to pass through both said casing and filter means and through said inlet port under action of said suction producing means.
5. A cleaning device as set forth in claim 4, wherein said foraminous casing is supported a substantial distance above the bottom of said receptacle, said inlet means communicating directly with the space defined by said receptacle and said foraminous casing for delivering said matter to said defined space; whereby liquid may be accumulated in said space while said foraminous casing remains within said container and spaced from the liquid so accumulated.
(column 6, line 38–42; Fig. 3) (emphasis added).
Eisen teaches a cleaning tool (“wet vacuum accessory”) comprising an adapter coupling (“receptacle 44”) configured to receive a wand (“wand 2”). (column 2, line 25–27; column 3, line 9–10; Fig. 1–2).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grottodden, by employing as taught by McCaffrey, an extraction cleaner including a fluid delivery system that distributes cleaning fluid to a surface: to conveniently switch back and forth using a single assembly, between applying cleaning fluid and suctioning up the cleaning fluid.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Grottodden, already modified by the preceding paragraph, by employing as taught by Ortega, a filter basket disposed within the tool interior and configured to capture debris within the filter basket while allowing air and liquid to flow through the filter basket: to facilitate disposal of solid matter separately from that of liquid disposal, pouring liquid down a drain, while dumping solid matter into the trash; or to facilitate recovery of a valuable from a suctioned combination of liquid and solid matter (for example, recovery of a ring or coin from a spill of liquid containing solid matter/debris).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Grottodden, already modified by the preceding paragraph, by configuring the body to comprise a second body portion removable from a first body portion, thereby providing selective access to debris or recovered fluid disposed within the tool interior through the access opening, because such a modification makes the body separable, and that would have been obvious to provide convenient access to scrub clean the interior of the body. MPEP 2144.04 (V)(C).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Grottodden, already modified by the preceding paragraph, by making the filter basket removable from the tool housing through the access opening, because such a modification makes the filter basket separable from the tool housing, and that would have been obvious: to facilitate disposal of solid matter separately from that of liquid disposal, pouring liquid down a drain, while dumping solid matter into the trash; or to facilitate recovery of a valuable from a suctioned combination of liquid and solid matter (for example, recovery of a ring or coin from a spill of liquid containing solid matter/debris). MPEP 2144.04 (V)(C).
Finally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grottodden, already modified by the preceding paragraph, by employing as taught by Eisen, an adapter coupling (Eisen’s “receptacle 44”) configured to receive a wand: to provide another reach extending device to which the cleaning tool can couple, and thereby improve ergonomics under some cleaning task conditions.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grottodden, McCaffrey, Ortega, and Eisen; and further in view of Borg and Robinson.
As to claim 18, Grottodden as modified to reject claim 17 above, already teaches the removable filter basket. Grottodden as modified to reject claim 17, however, does not teach that the removable filter basket defines a frame defining frame openings including mesh therein, nor that the frame openings are disposed at a forward portion of the removable filter basket.
Borg teaches that the removable filter basket (“first filter 62” or “second filter 66”) defines a frame (“plastic frame 68”) defining frame openings (frame openings defined by “plastic frame 68”) and that “mesh 67” is disposed within the frame openings. (Borg column 5, line 43–45; Borg Fig. 3). Borg also teaches that the frame openings are disposed at a forward portion of the removable filter basket (annotated Fig. 3 of Borg, annotated Fig. 8 of Borg).
PNG
media_image2.png
856
764
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3 of Borg. (Note that reference character “74” is hidden for clarity.)
PNG
media_image3.png
659
742
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 8 of Borg.
Robinson teaches that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to experiment with different pore sizes to determine a pore size suitable to a particular debris size targeted for removal from a liquid, or in other words, selecting a pore size "based on the nature or characteristics of the soil(s) to be removed from a particular area or areas of hard surface flooring (e.g., size(s) of the soil particles).” (paragraph 37).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Grottodden, already modified to reject claim 17, by providing as taught by Borg, a frame defining frame openings and “mesh 67” disposed within the frame openings: to select as taught by Robinson, a mesh that blocks targeted debris (Robinson paragraph 37); to increase support for the mesh compared with an alternative disposition of mesh in the filter receptacle, such as replacing the entire bottom surface of the filter receptacle with “mesh 67.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Grottodden, already modified by the preceding paragraph, by disposing as taught by Borg, the frame openings at a forward portion of the removable filter basket: for the frame openings to filter liquid or debris at a portion of the filter requiring liquid or debris to travel farther before it can approach the outlet to the suction pathway (than if the frame openings were disposed at a rear portion of the removable filter basket), and thereby increase the difficulty with which liquid or debris finds its way into the outlet to the suction pathway.
As to claim 19, Grottodden as already modified to reject claim 18 above, teaches the removable filter basket (Borg’s “first filter 62” or “second filter 66”). Grottodden as modified, however, does not teach that a rearward portion of the removable filter basket adjacent the outlet to the suction pathway is solid.
Borg teaches a solid rearward portion of the removable filter basket (“first filter 62”) adjacent to the outlet of the suction pathway as shown within each box on the righthand sides of Annotated Fig. 3 and 8 of Borg.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Grottodden, already modified to reject claim 18, by providing as taught by Borg, a solid rearward portion of the removable filter basket adjacent to the outlet to the suction pathway: to block liquid from entering the suction pathway.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grottodden, McCaffrey, Ortega, and Eisen, as applied above to reject claim 17; and further in view of Lee and Minerley.
As to claim 20, Grottodden as modified by the combination of references to reject claim 17 above, teaches the first body portion and the second body portion, but does not teach a first or second baffle.
Lee teaches a first baffle (“air-liquid separation surface 218” or “downwardly extending protrusion 221”) coupled with an upper interior surface of the body (“cover unit 214”). (column 5, line 42–52, 61–65; Fig. 5).
Minerley teaches a second baffle (“baffle plate 43,” “baffle plate 44,” or “baffle plate 45”) coupled with a lower interior surface of the body (“tank 10”). (column 3, line 17–21, 31–35, 42–47; Fig. 1–2, 4).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Grottodden, already modified to reject claim 17, by including as taught by Lee, a first baffle coupled with an upper interior surface of the first body portion; and by including as taught by Minerley, a second baffle coupled with a lower interior surface of the second body portion: to prevent, or increase the difficulty with which as taught by Minereley, liquid would have been suctioned into the suction source, like a fan of a vacuum cleaner motor (Minerley column 3, line 8–18); or to “facilitate separation of entrained liquid droplets” from air entering the interior of the cleaning tool (Lee column 5, line 42–52, 61–65); or to form a “labyrinth” of baffles that would have reduced the risk that liquid would have been suctioned into the suction source (Minerley column 3, line 48–52).
Conclusion
The following prior art is not relied upon in this office communication and is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Keating (US 2972769 A) column 2, line 54–71; Fig. 2.
PNG
media_image4.png
804
652
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Keating Fig. 2
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ENRICO MIOTTO whose telephone number is (571)272-2650. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:30 - 5:30 p.m..
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, NICHOLAS WEISS can be reached at (571) 270-1775. 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.
/ENRICO MIOTTO/Examiner, Art Unit 3711
/NICHOLAS J. WEISS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights