DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This is a first action on the merits of the application. Claims 1-17 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 60b (Figs. 7, 8.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim 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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: extractor arrangement in claim 1.
Claim limitation “extractor arrangement” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder “arrangement” coupled with functional language “extractor . . . providing fluid communication between the separating volume and a low-pressure region of the separator that operates at a lower pressure than the separating volume” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
A review of the specification (using US20250057374A1 to utilize paragraph numbers) shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: a duct ([0189]) or a duct arrangement comprising a network of one or more ducts ([0011]); a spout ([0015]) with a constriction ([0197]) that may generate a pressure drop ([0015]); a vacuum ejector ([0019], [0200]) or venturi ejector ([0203]); or a conduit ([0020]), flow path ([0201]), or bypass duct ([0206], [0209]).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 4, 9, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2: The claim recites, “wherein the low-pressure region is defined by a constricted channel that is configured to generate a pressure drop, in use.” The claim depends from claim 1, which recites, “an extractor arrangement providing fluid communication between the separating volume and a low-pressure region of the separator that operates at a lower pressure than the separating volume, in use, such that fluid is drawn into the extractor arrangement from the separating volume.” It is unclear what the metes and bounds of the terms “the low-pressure region,” “a constricted channel,” and “an extractor arrangement” are, i.e., the terms require disambiguation. In view of the interpretation above under 35 USC 112(f), the extractor arrangement is interpreted as a conduit (i.e., a channel) which may include a constriction [0197]) between the separating volume and the low-pressure region of the separator (claim 1) but claim 2 asserts that the constricted channel (i.e., the extractor arrangement) is (“is defined by”) the low-pressure region. Since claim 1 defines the extractor arrangement and the low-pressure region as different entities in different locations, it is unclear what is meant by the recitation that the extractor arrangement/constricted channel “define[s]” the low-pressure region. Likewise, since the extractor arrangement is or may be formed by a spout with a constricted channel that generates a pressure drop ([0015]), and claim 2 states that the constricted channel is configured to generate a pressure drop in use, it is unclear why the functional language of claim 2 is not associated with the extractor arrangement, raising uncertainty about the metes and bounds of the term “extractor arrangement.” For the purposes of examination only, and in view of the specification ([0015]), the constricted channel is interpreted as part of the extractor arrangement, and “is defined by” is interpreted as an equivalent of “comprises.”
Claim 4: The claim recites, “wherein the extractor arrangement is connected or connectable to a suction device that is configured to draw fluid from the separating volume through the extractor arrangement, so that the extractor arrangement comprises the low-pressure region.” Since the “extractor arrangement” and “the low-pressure region” are two different entities in claim 1, it is unclear how the limitation “so that the extractor arrangement comprises the low-pressure region” further limits the claim. For the purposes of examination only, considering that “comprises” is an open transitional term, the separator comprises the extractor arrangement, and the low-pressure is a part of the separator (claim 1), and that it would seem that the separator comprises both features, and so each may be interpreted as comprising the other, the phrase “so that the extractor arrangement comprises the low-pressure region” is interpreted as not further limiting the claim.
Claim 9: The claim recites, “the separating chamber.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. For the purposes of examination only, this feature will be interpreted as “the separating volume.”
Claim 10 is rejected because of its dependence from claim 9.
Claim 17: The claim recites, “wherein the method comprises establishing fluid communication between the separating volume and a low-pressure region of the separator that is at lower pressure than the separating volume, in use, to define an extractor arrangement into which fluid is drawn from the separating volume.” It is unclear what is meant by “wherein the method comprises establishing fluid communication between . . . a low-pressure region . . . to define an extractor arrangement.” As discussed above, “extractor arrangement” is interpreted as invoking 35 USC 112(f) and corresponding to a conduit/channel/duct. Therefore, the extractor arrangement is interpreted as a physical structure of the claimed cleaning device, which should exist as a feature of the cleaning device whether a relatively low-pressure region exists and a fluid communication to it is established or not. In other words, it is unclear in what sense a method including the step of establishing fluid communication can define a physical structure such as a conduit. For the purposes of examination only, the cleaning device will be interpreted as comprising an extractor arrangement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Conrad et al. (US 2010/0242421 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Conrad discloses cyclone unit 108 ([0032]), an upstream filter 116, and a downstream filter 118 (i.e., a separator, collectively) of a surface cleaning apparatus 100 (Fig. 1; [0031]) (i.e., for a cleaning device) comprising:
an outer wall 101 enclosing a cyclone 110 ([0032]) (i.e., a housing that encloses a separating volume) comprising a dirty air inlet 104 and a clean air outlet 106 ([0032]) (i.e., the housing comprising an inlet for receiving a fluid flow containing entrained debris into the separating volume, and an outlet for discharging a filtered fluid flow output from the separating volume);
the upstream filter 116, which may be a mesh filter, partially bounding the cyclone 110 (Fig. 2; [0034]) (i.e., a filter screen disposed on or in the housing to define part of a boundary of the separating volume, the filter screen being configured to retain the debris in the separating volume while allowing air to exit the separating volume to flow to the outlet); and
bypass channels 142,144 (i.e., an extractor arrangement) configured so that, as back pressure through filter 116 increases, air will pass through channels 142, 144 toward a downstream filter 118 ([0034], [0038]) and a suction motor housing 112 ([0032]) (i.e., a low-pressure region of the separator, collectively) (i.e., an extractor arrangement providing fluid communication between the separating volume and a low-pressure region of the separator that operates at a lower pressure than the separating volume, in use, such that fluid is drawn into the extractor arrangement from the separating volume).
Regarding claim 2, since a suction motor 114 draws air through the surface cleaning apparatus 100 ([0032]) (i.e., the motor is a source of relatively low pressure), and since there exists back pressure upstream of the filter 116 ([0038]), the bypass channels 142,144 are interpreted as generating a pressure drop when the apparatus is used (i.e., wherein the low-pressure region is defined by a constricted channel that is configured to generate a pressure drop, in use).
Regarding claim 3, the suction associated with the motor 114 ([0032]) is downstream of the mesh of the upstream filter 116 (Fig. 2; [0034]) (i.e., wherein the low-pressure region is defined by an area disposed on a downstream side of the filter screen).
Regarding claim 4, the bypass channels 142,144 are formed partly by an inner surface 134 of a filter housing 113 (Figs. 4, 5; [0039]) which encloses the suction motor 114 (Fig. 2) (i.e., wherein the extractor arrangement is connected to a suction device that is configured to draw fluid from the separating volume through the extractor arrangement), and air passes through the bypass channels 142, 144 as a result of back pressure through the filter ([0038]), so the bypass channels can be interpreted as comprising the low-pressure region (i.e., so that the extractor arrangement comprises the low-pressure region).
Regarding claim 9, notches 136, 138 serve as inlets (i.e., an intake) to the bypass channels 142, 144 (Fig. 4; [0039]) which are upstream of the bypass channels 142, 144 and adjacent to the upstream filter 116 (Fig. 5) and may be considered to extend and be connected to the cyclone 110 through the housing around the cyclone (at turned and vertical flow arrows between 110 and 116 in Fig. 2, so that the turned arrows are positioned at an “intake” to each bypass channel) (i.e., wherein the extractor arrangement connects to the separating chamber through an intake that is spaced longitudinally from the filter screen).
Regarding claim 10, the turned arrows in Fig. 2 between the cyclone 110 and the filter 116, which may be regarded as the intakes of the bypass channels, are at a longitudinal end of the cyclone 110 (i.e., wherein the intake is disposed at or near a longitudinal end of the separating chamber).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Conrad teaches that the surface cleaning apparatus 100 is a portable hand vacuum cleaner ([0031]) (i.e., a cleaning device comprising the separator of any preceding claim 1; embodied as a domestic appliance).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Conrad.
Conrad discloses a method ([0030]) of drawing air through an airflow passage from a cyclone 110 (i.e., a separating volume) of a cyclone unit 108 (Fig. 2; [0032]) toward a downstream filter 118 ([0034], [0038]) and a suction motor housing 112 ([0032]) of a cyclone unit 108 ([0032]), an upstream filter 116, and a downstream filter 118 (i.e., a separator, collectively) ([0034]), and said components are of a surface cleaning apparatus 100 (Fig. 1; [0031]) (i.e., wherein the method comprises establishing fluid communication between a separating volume and a low-pressure region of a separator that is at lower pressure than the separating volume, in use; a separator for a cleaning device), wherein the upstream filter 116 may be a mesh filter (i.e., a filter screen) ([0034]) (i.e., a filter screen),
wherein the filter screen is within an outer wall 101 and partially encloses the cyclone 110 ([0032]) (i.e., the filter screen being disposed in a housing of the separator to define part of a boundary of a separating volume enclosed by the housing), the outer wall comprising a dirty air inlet 104 and a clean air outlet 106 ([0032]) (i.e., the housing comprising an inlet for receiving a fluid flow containing entrained debris into the separating volume and an outlet for discharging a filtered fluid flow output from the separating volume), and
wherein bypass channels 142,144 (i.e., an extractor arrangement) are provided so that, as back pressure through filter 116 increases, air will pass from the cyclone 110 through the channels 142, 144 toward downstream filter 118 ([0034], [0038]) and suction motor housing 112 ([0032]) (i.e., to define an extractor arrangement into which fluid is drawn from the separating volume).
Regarding the limitation of a method “of reducing blockage of a filter screen” of a separator for a cleaning device, since the bypass channels divert airflow from the upstream filter when it is partially clogged ([0009]) to the downstream filter ([0038]), the passage of air through the bypass channels is interpreted as reducing blockage of the upstream filter. Alternatively, since the method of Conrad includes the steps of the claimed method within a structure as claimed, the method of Conrad is interpreted as having the same effects as the claimed method.
Claim Objections
Claims 5-8 and 11-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
A thorough search for pertinent prior art did not locate any prior art that discloses or suggests the invention recited in claims 5-8 and 11-14.
The concept of a separator for a cleaning device, the separator comprising:
a housing that encloses a separating volume, the housing comprising an inlet for receiving a fluid flow containing entrained debris into the separating volume, and an outlet for discharging a filtered fluid flow output from the separating volume;
a filter screen disposed on or in the housing to define part of a boundary of the separating volume, the filter screen being configured to retain the debris in the separating volume while allowing air to exit the separating volume to flow to the outlet; and
an extractor arrangement providing fluid communication between the separating volume and a low-pressure region of the separator that operates at a lower pressure than the separating volume, in use, such that fluid is drawn into the extractor arrangement from the separating volume (claim 1);
wherein the extractor arrangement comprises a spout that is connected to the inlet, the spout comprising a spout outlet through which the fluid flow is discharged into the separating volume (claim 5)
wherein the extractor arrangement comprises a spout that is connected to the inlet, the spout comprising a spout outlet through which the fluid flow is discharged into the separating volume, and wherein the spout comprises the constricted channel (claim 8);
wherein the extractor arrangement is arranged to promote accumulation of debris in a region of the separating volume that is spaced from the filter screen (claim 11);
comprising a filter that is arranged to prevent debris from entering the extractor arrangement (claim 13); or
wherein the extractor arrangement defines or forms part of a vacuum ejector (claim 14)
is considered to define patentable subject matter over the prior art.
The closest prior art is Conrad et al. (US 2010/0242421 A1), which discloses bypass channels 142,144 (i.e., an extractor arrangement) configured so that, as back pressure through filter 116 increases, air will pass through channels 142, 144 toward a downstream filter 118 ([0034], [0038]) and a suction motor housing 112 ([0032]).
Regarding claims 5 and 8, Conrad does not suggest a spout with an outlet through which the fluid flow is discharged into the separating volume.
Regarding claim 11, Conrad does not suggest that the bypass channels are arranged to promote accumulation of debris in a region of the cyclone that is spaced from the filter.
Regarding claim 13, Conrad does not suggest a filter for preventing debris from entering the bypass channels.
Regarding claim 14, Conrad does not suggest a vacuum ejector.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL E GITMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7934. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:15-5:45pm.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at 571-272-3471. 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.
/GABRIEL E GITMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights