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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5, lines 2-3, consider amending to,-- disposed in the dust collecting chamber and configured to circulate air inside the dust bag with outside air by generating an airflow that passes through the dust bag--
Appropriate correction is required.
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: “drying part” in claim 1.
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 1-13 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 1, lines 3-4 and claim 13, lines 2-3 state: “a coupling part disposed in the housing and including a coupling surface to which at least a part of a cleaner is coupled.” It is unclear if the cleaner is part of the claimed invention or not. However, it appears “a cleaner” is coupled to the station, which indicates it is a positively recited element of the invention. For examination purposes of this office action, this will be interpreted as intended use, in which the coupling part is a surface configured to be coupled to a cleaner.
Claims 2-12 are rejected accordingly under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) since they are dependent on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(2) as being anticipated by Hackert (US 20210010685).
Regarding claim 1, Hackert (US 20210010685) discloses a cleaner station (10; fig. 1; para.41) comprising:
a housing (40; fig. 1, annotated 1; para.54);
a coupling part (vertical surface portion of part 40 that is circularly defined in fig.1, annotated 2 that receives the vacuum; paras. 70, 72, 84) disposed in the housing (para. 70; fig. 1, annotated 1) and including a coupling surface (as seen in fig. 1, annotated 2 the annotated part receives the cleaner; para.72-73) to which at least a part of a cleaner is coupled (fig. 1, annotated 2; para.72);
a suction flow path (40F and 50F; fig. 1, annotated 1; para. 73) having one end connected to a dust passage hole (as annotated in fig. 1, annotated 1 below; para. 73) formed in the coupling surface (fig. 1, annotated 1; para.70);
a dust collecting part (comprising bag 50H and the associated dust collection chamber, as annotated below in fig. 1, annotated 3; paras. 84 and 134-135) connected to the other end of the suction flow path (fig. 1, annotated 3; paras. 73 and 134) and including a dust bag (50H; fig. 1, annotated 3; para. 135) configured to capture dust in a dust bin of the cleaner (fig. 1, annotated 3; para. 135), and a dust collecting chamber (as annotated in fig. 1, annotated 3 below; para. 80) configured to accommodate the dust bag (fig. 1, annotated 3; para. 75); and
a drying part (defined by at least elements 50J, 10E, and associated conduits 40F and 50F, as annotated in fig. 1, annotated 3 below) configured to dry an interior of the dust bag by generating an airflow to be introduced into the dust bag in the dust collecting chamber (the continuous airflow introduced by the drying part allows the interior of the dustbag to dry, as annotated in fig. 2 below and by the black arrows; para. 73).
PNG
media_image1.png
404
543
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
364
499
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
621
468
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Hackert discloses the cleaner station of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein the drying part comprises: an air inlet port (communication ports as annotated in fig. 1 below; para. 79) configured to allow an interior of the dust collecting chamber and the outside of the housing to communicate with each other (as annotated in fig.1 below, air from outside the housing flows into the interior of the dust collection chamber via air inlet ports; para. 69);
a blower fan (50J; fig. 1; para. 77) configured to introduce air present outside the housing into the dust collecting chamber through the air inlet port (fig.2; para. 77); and
a shutter (10E; fig.1; para. 85) configured to open or close the air inlet port (fig.1; para. 85).
PNG
media_image4.png
804
522
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Hackert discloses the limitations of claim 2, as described above, and further teaches wherein the blower fan introduces air into the dust collecting chamber (fig.2; para. 77) in a state in which the shutter opens the air inlet port (fig.1; para. 85).
Regarding claim 5, Hackert discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein the drying part comprises a blower fan (50J; fig. 1; para. 77) disposed in the dust collecting chamber and configured to circulate air inside the dust bag with outside air by generating an airflow that passes through the dust bag (fig.2; paras. 77 and 130); air flow is generated by suction means as it sucks the outside air from the suction flow path, passes through the dust bag, and is released back outside).
Regarding claim 7, Hackert discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein the drying part comprises: an air inlet port (communication ports annotated in fig. 1 below; para. 73) configured to allow the interior of the dust bag to communicate with an intermediate space defined between an outer peripheral surface of the dust bag and an inner peripheral surface of the dust collecting chamber (Intermediate space annotated in fig.1 below; paras. 73, 77, and 84. An inlet port injects air into dust collecting chamber the air goes through the permeable bag and into the intermediate space);
a blower fan configured to introduce air in the intermediate space into the dust bag through the air inlet port (fig. 2; paras. 73 and 77); and
a shutter (10E; fig. 1) configured to open or close the air inlet port (para. 85, when the shutter does not block the fluid passage way of 40F and 50F it allows air to flow into the dust collection chamber).
PNG
media_image5.png
683
557
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Hackert discloses the limitations of claim 7, as described above, and further discloses wherein the blower fan introduces air into the dust bag in a state in which the shutter opens the air inlet port (fig.1; paras. 73, 77, and 85).
Regarding claim 10, Hackert discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein a discharge flow path (10H and 10L; fig. 2; para. 127 and 135) is provided at one side of the dust collecting chamber and guides at least a part of air, which flows in the dust collecting chamber, to the outside of the housing (fig. 2; para. 127 and 135).
Regarding claim 11, Hackert discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses wherein a flow path cover (10E; fig. 1; para. 85) configured to open or close the suction flow path is provided at one side of the suction flow path (fig.1; para. 85).
Regarding claim 12, Hackert discloses the limitations of claim 11, as described above, and further teaches wherein the drying part generates an airflow to be introduced into the dust bag in the dust collecting chamber (fig.2; paras. 77 and 130) in a state in which the flow path cover closes the suction flow path (suction flow path consists of 40F and 50F when airflow is generated, one of the suction flow paths will be covered and closes one of the paths; para. 85).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hackert (US 20210010685) in view of Hiroshi (JP 2683434 B2).
Regarding claim 3, Hackert teaches the limitations of claim 2, as described above, however does not explicitly teach wherein the drying part comprises a heater configured to heat air introduced into the dust collecting chamber by the blower fan.
However, Hiroshi (JP 2683434 B2), concerned with the art of a suction cleaning apparatus capable of holding dirt in a dust bag in a dust chamber, teaches wherein the drying part comprises a heater (71, Hiroshi; figs. 2-3; para.12, lines 400-410) and configured to heat air introduced into the dust collecting chamber by the blower fan (figs. 2, 3, and 5, Hiroshi; para. 9, lines 310-315 and para. 10, lines 311-320).
One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the hot air that circulates through the inside of the air permeable bag, also circulates through the outside of the air permeable bag in the dust collecting chamber.
Both Hiroshi and Hackert are concerned with the art of a suction cleaning apparatus capable of holding dirt in a dust bag in a dust chamber. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the suction flow path, as taught by Hackert, to additionally include a heater upstream to the dust collection chamber, as taught by Hiroshi, for the purpose of increasing utility and killing harmful insects such as pests or mites (para. 2 lines 91-98, Hiroshi).
Regarding claim 6, Hackert discloses the limitations of claim 5, as described above, however does not explicitly disclose wherein the drying part comprises a heater configured to heat the air that circulates through the inside and outside of the dust bag by the blower fan.
However, Hiroshi (JP 2683434 B2), concerned with the art of a suction cleaning apparatus capable of holding dirt in a dust bag in a dust chamber, teaches wherein the drying part comprises a heater (71, Hiroshi; figs. 2-3; para.12, lines 400-410) configured to heat the air that circulates through the inside and outside of the dust bag by the blower fan (figs. 2, 3, and 5, Hiroshi; para. 9, lines 310-315 and para. 10, lines 311-320).
One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the hot air that circulates through the inside of the air permeable bag, also circulates through the outside of the air permeable bag.
Both Hiroshi and Hackert are concerned with the art of a suction cleaning apparatus capable of holding dirt in a dust bag in a dust chamber. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the suction flow path, as taught by Hackert to additionally include a heater upstream to the dust collection chamber, as taught by Hiroshi for the purpose of increasing utility and killing harmful insects such as pests or mites (para. 2 lines 91-98, Hiroshi).
Regarding claim 8, Hackert teaches the limitations of claim 8, as described above, however does not explicitly disclose wherein the drying part comprises a heater configured to heat air introduced into the dust bag by the blower fan.
However, Hiroshi (JP 2683434 B2), concerned with the art of a suction cleaning apparatus capable of holding dirt in a dust bag in a dust chamber, teaches wherein drying part comprises a heater (71, Hiroshi; figs. 2-3; para.12, lines 400-410) configured to heat air introduced into the dust bag by the blower fan (figs. 2, 3, and 5, Hiroshi; para. 9, lines 310-315 and para. 10, lines 311-320).
Both Hiroshi and Hackert are concerned with the art of a suction cleaning apparatus capable of holding dirt in a dust bag in a dust chamber. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the suction flow path, as taught by Hackert, to additionally include a heater upstream to the dust collection chamber, as taught by Hiroshi, for the purpose of increasing utility and killing harmful insects such as pests or mites (para. 2 lines 91-98, Hiroshi).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hackert (US 20210010685) in view of Hidetoshi (JP H06102058 B2).
Hackert, concerned with the art of a cleaner station with a dust collection chamber, teaches:
A cleaner station (10; fig. 1, annotated 2; para.41) comprising: a housing (40; fig. 1, annotated 1; para.54);
a coupling part (vertical surface portion of part 40 that is circularly defined in fig.1, annotated 2 that receives the vacuum; paras. 70, 72, 84) disposed in the housing (para. 70; fig. 1, annotated 1) and including a coupling surface (as seen in fig. 1, annotated 2 the annotated part receives the cleaner; para.72-73) to which at least a part of a cleaner is coupled (fig. 1, annotated 2; para.72);
a suction flow path (40F and 50F; fig. 1, annotated 1; para. 73) having one end connected to a dust passage hole (as annotated in fig. 1, annotated 1 below; para. 73) formed in the coupling surface (fig. 1, annotated 1; para.70);
a dust collecting part (comprising bag 50H and the associated dust collection chamber, as annotated below in fig. 1, annotated 3; paras. 84 and 134-135) connected to the other end of the suction flow path (fig. 1, annotated 3; paras. 73 and 134) and including a dust bag (50H; fig. 1, annotated 3; para. 135) configured to capture dust in a dust bin of the cleaner (fig. 1, annotated 3; para. 135), and a dust collecting chamber (as annotated in fig. 1, annotated 3 below; para. 80) configured to accommodate the dust bag (fig. 1, annotated 3; para. 75). However, Hackert does not explicitly disclose wherein a heater is disposed in the dust collecting chamber.
PNG
media_image1.png
404
543
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
364
499
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
621
468
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, Hidetoshi (JP H06102058 B2), concerned with the art of a suction cleaning apparatus capable of holding dirt in a dust bag in a dust chamber, teaches wherein a heater (18, Hidetoshi; fig. 1; para. 1, lines 53-60) is disposed in the dust collecting chamber (fig. 1, Hidetoshi; para. 1, lines 53-60).
Both Hidetoshi and Hackert are concerned with the art of a suction cleaning apparatus capable of holding dirt in a dust bag in a dust chamber. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dust collection chamber, as taught by Hackert, to additionally include a heater, as taught by Hidetoshi, for the purpose of increasing utility and killing harmful insects such as pests or mites, sanitizing, and preventing malodor para. 2, 90-100, Hidetoshi).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T. FARRELL whose telephone number is (571)270-0401. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM - 5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL THADDUES FARRELL JR/ Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights