The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means”, “step”, or a generic placeholder but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “surface cleaning device” in Claims 1-8 and 12-18.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 12-18, and therefore dependent Claims 19 and 20, 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 12-18 recite the limitation "The surface cleaning device of claim …". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims since a surface cleaning device has not been previously claimed. Additionally, the claims are dependent upon Claim 11 which is a surface cleaning head, not a surface cleaning device making the scope of the claim indefinite.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 12-18, and therefore dependent Claims 19 and 20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 12-18 are “surface cleaning devices” dependent upon Claim 11 which is a “surface cleaning head” not a device that has a surface cleaning head. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claims 1-7 and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pruiett et al. US 2021/0169294 (hereafter Pruiett et al.) in view of Oldfield et al. US 2022/0346612 (hereafter Oldfield et al.) and Johnson et al. US 11,540,689 (hereafter Johnson et al.).
Regarding Claim 1, Pruiett et al. teaches:
1. A surface cleaning device (steam sweeper 10) comprising:
an upright section (steam unit 12 and wand 14); and
a surface cleaning head (base 16) pivotally coupled to the upright section, the surface cleaning head including:
a fluid distributor (pump 28 and steam distribution nozzle 32) configured to distribute a cleaning fluid;
an agitator (sweeping element 92) configured to absorb at least a portion of the distributed cleaning fluid (Paragraph [0124]) and configured to rotate about a rotation axis to agitate debris on the surface to be cleaned, the agitator being configured to pivot about an agitator pivot axis between an in-use position and a removal position (as shown in Figure 17, brushroll 92 pivots about an agitator pivot axis when brushroll latch 240 is lifted relative to lateral sidewall 212 while splined drive connection 118 to 116 is initially maintained resulting in the brushroll 92 pivoting about an agitator pivot axis to predetermined angle that allows it to be removed), the agitator pivot axis extending transverse to the rotation axis (see discussion below);
a debris container (collection bin 94) including:
a solid debris chamber (collection chamber 152 receives dirt, Paragraphs [0095] and [0122]) configured to collect at least a portion of the debris agitated from the surface to be cleaned; and
a fluid debris chamber (collection chamber 152 receives fluid, Paragraph [0095] and [0122]) configured to collect at least a portion of fluid removed from the agitator (see discussion below); and
a removable cover (cover 96, Figure 17) extending over at least a portion of the debris container (enclosure 200) and at least a portion of the agitator (shown in Figure 16), the removable cover including a fluid catch plate (inner cover 156 with interference edge 142 and dirt deflectors 164) configured to transfer at least a portion of the cleaning fluid removed from the agitator to the fluid debris chamber (interference edge 142 scrapes dirt and fluid from agitator and dirt deflectors serve to separate dirt and fluid from the air stream), wherein removal of the removable cover exposes an agitator opening through which at least a portion of the agitator extends when the agitator is in the removal position (Figure 17).
In Figure 17, Pruiett et al. discloses a removal cover 96 that exposes the sweeping element 92 and a brushroll latch 240 that is lifted by a user while the splined drive connection 118 remains connected resulting in the brushroll latch end of the sweeping element pivoting upward relative to the splined drive connection end about a pivot axis as claimed. Although this operation would have been clearly obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention based on the disclosed structure, it is not specifically shown in Figure 17. The reference Oldfield et al. discloses in Figure 4B a brushbar 37 that removed in a manner similar to the Pruiett et al. device where free end 37a is lifted by the user and the other end remains coupled resulting in the brushbar 37 pivoting about a pivot axis prior to removal along a removal axis collinear with the rotational axis as shown in Figure 4C. Oldfield additionally discloses that the brushbar 37 includes a motor cavity that receives a brushbar motor 43 to be mounted inside the brushbar 37. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Pruiett et al. device to pivot and be removable as shown in Oldfield et al. Figures 4B and 4C, which seems to already be the case, with the motivation to allow for the agitator to be removable as disclosed. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Pruiett et al. device to replace the common motor/pulley arrangement, shown in Figure 11, with a motor mounted inside a cavity within the agitator as taught by Oldfield et al. with the motivation to reduce the distance between the end of the brushroll and the sidewall which allows the device to clean closer to an adjacent wall during a user’s cleaning operation.
Pruiett et al. discloses in Figure 14 a cross section showing how the brushroll 92 includes an interference edge 142 that scrapes fluid from the brushroll and the solid debris and fluid is collected in a collection chamber 152 of a collection bin 94. Pruiett et al. elected to collect both solid debris and fluid in the same collection bin rather than separate chambers. The reference Johnson et al. discloses in Figure 5 a cross section of a cleaning apparatus that is structurally very similar to Pruiett et al. Figure 14. As shown, Johnson et al. discloses a brushroll 30 that includes an interference edge 52 that scrapes fluid from the brushroll. Johnson et al. elects to collect the solid debris in a chamber 74 of tray 70 and fluid debris is separately collected in a second collection area 48 that could comprise a recovery tank 108. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Pruiett et al. device to include a debris container that includes a solid debris chamber (current configuration) and a separate fluid debris chamber, as taught by Johnson et al. with the motivation to increase the volume of debris collection or perhaps move the fluid to a deeper collection chamber to prevent fluid spillage.
Regarding Claim 2, Pruiett et al. teaches:
2. The surface cleaning device of claim 1, wherein, when transitioning between the in-use and removal positions (user removing as taught by Pruiett et al. and Oldfield et al.), the agitator (sweeping element 92) rotates through an angle of about 35° to about 55° (see discussion below).
Pruiett et al. discloses that the sweeping element 92 continuously rotates about a rotation axis. Therefore, during removal of the sweeping element, the user can arbitrarily rotate the sweeping element to any angle of about 35° to about 55°, as it is removed from the device. The structure taught by Pruiett et al. discloses that the sweeping element pivots in a manner shown by Oldfield et al. Figures 4B and 4C. Neither Pruiett et al. nor Oldfield et al. disclose the measurement of the pivot angle. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that once the end of the brushroll is lifted to the point of release the user can elect to remove the brushroll with a mostly vertical operation, or it can be pivoted further to any desired angle before removal. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the pivot angle shown in Oldfield et al. Figures 4B and 4C being about 35° to about 55° since the rotation angle is mostly determined by a user during removal, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 3 Pruiett et al. teaches:
3. The surface cleaning device of claim 1, wherein, when in the removal position (As shown in Figure 17, brushroll 92 pivots about an agitator pivot axis when brushroll latch 240 is lifted relative to lateral sidewall 212 while splined drive connection 118 to 116 is initially maintained resulting in the brushroll 92 pivoting about an agitator pivot axis to predetermined angle that allows it to be removed, see Oldfield et al. Figures 4B), the agitator (brushroll 92) is removable from the surface cleaning head (base 16) along a removal axis (see Oldfield et al. Figure 4C), the removal axis corresponds to the rotation axis of the agitator (once lifted to the cited angled removal position, the agitator can be removed along the rotation axis of the agitator to decouple splined drive connection 118 from 116 and allow complete brushroll removal. Also, see Oldfield et al. Figure 4C where the agitator is slid off of motor 43).
Regarding Claim 4, Pruiett et al. teaches:
4. The surface cleaning device of claim 1, wherein the agitator (brushroll 92) includes an agitator body (dowel 98 and splined drive connection 118), a motor cavity (cavity formed inside splined drive connection 118 allowing driven connection to motor) defined within the agitator body, and an agitation material (microfiber 102) extending from an outer surface of the agitator body (best shown in Figure 11).
Regarding Claim 5, Pruiett et al. teaches:
5. The surface cleaning device of claim 4, wherein the motor cavity (cavity inside brushroll 92 as modified by Oldfield et al. to include an internal motor) is configured to receive an agitator motor (as modified by Oldfield et al. to include brushroll motor 43), the agitator motor being configured to pivot with the agitator about the agitator pivot axis (as modified by Oldfield to operate as taught in Figures 4B and 4C).
Regarding Claim 6, Pruiett et al. teaches:
6. The surface cleaning device of claim 5, wherein the agitator (brushroll 92) is slidably coupled to the agitator motor (as modified by Oldfield et al. to include brushroll motor 43) such that removal of the agitator exposes the agitator motor (as modified by Oldfield et al. to operate as shown in Figures 4B and 4C).
Regarding Claim 7, Pruiett et al. teaches:
7. The surface cleaning device of claim 5 further comprising a motor retainer (as modified by Oldfield to be pivotably fixed to 36B and support member 42, Paragraph [0037]) configured to selectively retain the agitator in the removal position (as modified by Oldfield to operate as taught in Figure 4B).
Regarding Claim 11, Pruiett et al. teaches:
11. A surface cleaning head (base 16) comprising:
a fluid distributor (pump 28 and steam distribution nozzle 32) configured to distribute a cleaning fluid;
an agitator (sweeping element 92) configured to absorb at least a portion of the distributed cleaning fluid (Paragraph [0124]) and configured to rotate about a rotation axis to agitate debris on the surface to be cleaned, the agitator being configured to pivot about an agitator pivot axis between an in-use position and a removal position (as shown in Figure 17, brushroll 92 pivots about an agitator pivot axis when brushroll latch 240 is lifted relative to lateral sidewall 212 while splined drive connection 118 to 116 is initially maintained resulting in the brushroll 92 pivoting about an agitator pivot axis to predetermined angle that allows it to be removed), the agitator pivot axis extending transverse to the rotation axis (see discussion below);
a debris container (collection bin 94) including:
a solid debris chamber (collection chamber 152 receives dirt, Paragraphs [0095] and [0122]) configured to collect at least a portion of the debris agitated from the surface to be cleaned; and
a fluid debris chamber (collection chamber 152 receives fluid, Paragraph [0095] and [0122]) configured to collect at least a portion of fluid removed from the agitator (see discussion below); and
a removable cover (cover 96, Figure 17) extending over at least a portion of the debris container (enclosure 200) and at least a portion of the agitator (shown in Figure 16), the removable cover including a fluid catch plate (inner cover 156 with interference edge 142 and dirt deflectors 164) configured to transfer at least a portion of the cleaning fluid removed from the agitator to the fluid debris chamber (interference edge 142 scrapes dirt and fluid from agitator and dirt deflectors serve to separate dirt and fluid from the air stream), wherein removal of the removable cover exposes an agitator opening through which at least a portion of the agitator extends when the agitator is in the removal position (Figure 17).
In Figure 17, Pruiett et al. discloses a removal cover 96 that exposes the sweeping element 92 and a brushroll latch 240 that is lifted by a user while the splined drive connection 118 remains connected resulting in the brushroll latch end of the sweeping element pivoting upward relative to the splined drive connection end about a pivot axis as claimed. Although this operation would have been clearly obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention based on the disclosed structure, it is not specifically shown in Figure 17. The reference Oldfield et al. discloses in Figure 4B a brushbar 37 that removed in a manner similar to the Pruiett et al. device where free end 37a is lifted by the user and the other end remains coupled resulting in the brushbar 37 pivoting about a pivot axis prior to removal along a removal axis collinear with the rotational axis as shown in Figure 4C. Oldfield additionally discloses that the brushbar 37 includes a motor cavity that receives a brushbar motor 43 to be mounted inside the brushbar 37. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Pruiett et al. device to pivot and be removable as shown in Oldfield et al. Figures 4B and 4C, which seems to already be the case, with the motivation to allow for the agitator to be removable as disclosed. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Pruiett et al. device to replace the common motor/pulley arrangement, shown in Figure 11, with a motor mounted inside a cavity within the agitator as taught by Oldfield et al. with the motivation to reduce the distance between the end of the brushroll and the sidewall which allows the device to clean closer to an adjacent wall during a user’s cleaning operation.
Pruiett et al. discloses in Figure 14 a cross section showing how the brushroll 92 includes an interference edge 142 that scrapes fluid from the brushroll and the solid debris and fluid is collected in a collection chamber 152 of a collection bin 94. Pruiett et al. elected to collect both solid debris and fluid in the same collection bin rather than separate chambers. The reference Johnson et al. discloses in Figure 5 a cross section of a cleaning apparatus that is structurally very similar to Pruiett et al. Figure 14. As shown, Johnson et al. discloses a brushroll 30 that includes an interference edge 52 that scrapes fluid from the brushroll. Johnson et al. elects to collect the solid debris in a chamber 74 of tray 70 and fluid debris is separately collected in a second collection area 48 that could comprise a recovery tank 108. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Pruiett et al. device to include a debris container that includes a solid debris chamber (current configuration) and a separate fluid debris chamber, as taught by Johnson et al. with the motivation to increase the volume of debris collection or perhaps move the fluid to a deeper collection chamber to prevent fluid spillage.
Regarding Claim 12, Pruiett et al. teaches:
12. The surface cleaning device of claim 11, wherein, when transitioning between the in-use and removal positions (user removing as taught by Pruiett et al. and Oldfield et al.), the agitator (sweeping element 92) rotates through an angle of about 35° to about 55° (see discussion below).
Pruiett et al. discloses that the sweeping element 92 continuously rotates about a rotation axis. Therefore, during removal of the sweeping element, the user can arbitrarily rotate the sweeping element to any angle of about 35° to about 55°, as it is removed from the device. The structure taught by Pruiett et al. discloses that the sweeping element pivots in a manner shown by Oldfield et al. Figures 4B and 4C. Neither Pruiett et al. nor Oldfield et al. disclose the measurement of the pivot angle. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that once the end of the brushroll is lifted to the point of release the user can elect to remove the brushroll with a mostly vertical operation, or it can be pivoted further to any desired angle before removal. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the pivot angle shown in Oldfield et al. Figures 4B and 4C being about 35° to about 55° since the rotation angle is mostly determined by a user during removal, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 13, Pruiett et al. teaches:
13. The surface cleaning device of claim 11, wherein, when in the removal position (As shown in Figure 17, brushroll 92 pivots about an agitator pivot axis when brushroll latch 240 is lifted relative to lateral sidewall 212 while splined drive connection 118 to 116 is initially maintained resulting in the brushroll 92 pivoting about an agitator pivot axis to predetermined angle that allows it to be removed, see Oldfield et al. Figures 4B), the agitator (brushroll 92) is removable from the surface cleaning head (base 16) along a removal axis (see Oldfield et al. Figure 4C), the removal axis corresponds to the rotation axis of the agitator (once lifted to the cited angled removal position, the agitator can be removed along the rotation axis of the agitator to decouple splined drive connection 118 from 116 and allow complete brushroll removal. Also, see Oldfield et al. Figure 4C where the agitator is slid off of motor 43).
Regarding Claim 14, Pruiett et al. teaches:
14. The surface cleaning device of claim 11, wherein the agitator (brushroll 92) includes an agitator body (dowel 98 and splined drive connection 118), a motor cavity (cavity formed inside splined drive connection 118 allowing driven connection to motor) defined within the agitator body, and an agitation material (microfiber 102) extending from an outer surface of the agitator body (best shown in Figure 11).
Regarding Claim 15, Pruiett et al. teaches:
15. The surface cleaning device of claim 14, wherein the motor cavity (cavity inside brushroll 92 as modified by Oldfield et al. to include an internal motor) is configured to receive an agitator motor (as modified by Oldfield et al. to include brushroll motor 43), the agitator motor being configured to pivot with the agitator about the agitator pivot axis (as modified by Oldfield to operate as taught in Figures 4B and 4C).
Regarding Claim 16, Pruiett et al. teaches:
16. The surface cleaning device of claim 15, wherein the agitator (brushroll 92) is slidably coupled to the agitator motor (as modified by Oldfield et al. to include brushroll motor 43) such that removal of the agitator exposes the agitator motor (as modified by Oldfield et al. to operate as shown in Figures 4B and 4C).
Regarding Claim 17, Pruiett et al. teaches:
17. The surface cleaning device of claim 15 further comprising a motor retainer (as modified by Oldfield to be pivotably fixed to 36B and support member 42, Paragraph [0037]) configured to selectively retain the agitator in the removal position (as modified by Oldfield to operate as taught in Figure 4B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10 and 18-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but it would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in form PTO-892 Notice of References Cited. Specifically, the prior art references include pertinent disclosures of vacuum cleaners with removable agitators.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30am-3:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, BRIAN KELLER can be reached on (571) 272-8548. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARC CARLSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights