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 .
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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 – 20 are pending.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,011,127 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are drafter more broadly and therefore anticipated by the patented claims.
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, 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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 4 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng (CN108742304 A).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Deng teaches a floor cleaner (Paragraph [0002]) comprising: a fluid flow path (represented by arrows, see Fig. 1) extending from a dirty air inlet (suction pipe, 6) to a clean air outlet (outlet, 402); a fluid flow motor positioned in the fluid flow path (Paragraph [0035]); a recovery tank (trash can, 3) positioned in the fluid flow path (Fig. 1) having a top portion (Annotated Fig. 1), a bottom portion (Annotated Fig. 5), and a sidewall (Annotated Fig. 5) extending between the top portion and the bottom portion (Fig. 5), the recovery tank (3) configured to receive liquid-laden air from the dirty air inlet (6; Paragraph [0041]), the recovery tank (3) having a recovery tank inlet (Annotated Fig. 5) forming an inlet passageway in fluid communication with the dirty air inlet (6) and a recovery tank outlet (Annotated Fig. 5) in fluid communication with the clean air outlet (402), the recovery tank inlet (Annotated Fig. 5) disposed on a side of the recovery tank (3), a baffle (guide baffle, 712) with a baffle wall (Annotated Fig. 5) surrounding a baffle axis (Annotated Fig. 5), the baffle wall having an upper end (Annotated Fig. 5) and a lower end (Annotated Fig. 5) opposite the upper end (Annotated Fig. 5), the baffle axis (Annotated Fig. 5) extends in a direction from the bottom portion (Annotated Fig. 5) of the recovery tank (3) to the top portion (Annotated Fig. 5) of the recovery tank (3), the baffle wall (Annotated Fig. 5) having a wall portion (Fig. 5) extending along the side of the recovery tank (3) having the recovery tank inlet, the wall portion extending between the upper end of the baffle wall and the lower end of the baffle wall (Annotated Fig. 5), the wall portion (7125; Fig. 5) is angled such that the wall portion is further from the side of the recovery tank (3) having the recovery tank inlet toward the lower end of the baffle wall (Annotated Fig, 5), the baffle (712) aligned with the inlet passageway (Fig. 1), the inlet passageway configured to direct a stream of liquid-laden air against the baffle wall (712).
PNG
media_image1.png
688
792
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Deng teaches the airflow rotates but does not explicitly teach the inlet passageway configured to direct a stream of liquid-laden air against the baffle wall directing a first portion of the liquid circumferentially around the baffle in a clockwise direction and a second portion in a counter clockwise direction to separate the liquid from the air, however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cleaner of Deng to further include the inlet passageway configured to direct a stream of liquid-laden air against the baffle wall directing a first portion of the liquid circumferentially around the baffle in a clockwise direction and a second portion in a counter clockwise direction to separate the liquid from the air, as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the direction of a component. A change in direction is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 4, Deng teaches the floor cleaner (Paragraph [0002]) wherein the sidewall (Annoted Fig. 5) of the recovery tank (3) defines a central axis (Annotated Fig. 5) extending between the top portion (Annoted Fig. 5) of the recovery tank (3) and the bottom portion (Annoted Fig. 5) of the recovery tank (3), and wherein the wall portion (7125) of the baffle wall (Annotated Fig. 5) is angled such that the lower end of the baffle wall (Annotated Fig. 5) is closer to the central axis (Annotated Fig. 5) than the upper end of the baffle wall (baffle wall of 71 angles toward the central axis in that the top of the baffle wall sis closer to the recovery tank, 3 than a bottom portion of the baffle wall).
Regarding Claim 5, Deng teaches the floor cleaner (Paragraph [0002]) wherein the sidewall (Annotated Fig. 5) of the recovery tank (3) is cylindrical (Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 6, Deng teaches the floor cleaner (Paragraph [0002]) wherein the wall portion (7125) of the baffle wall (Annotated Fig. 5) is angled such that the lower end of the baffle wall (Annotated Fig. 5) is closer to the baffle axis (Annotated Fig. 5) than the upper end of the baffle wall (Annotated Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 7, Deng teaches the floor cleaner (Paragraph [0002]) wherein the baffle wall (Annotated Fig. 5) includes a skirt (Annotated Fig. 5) around the lower end of the baffle wall (Annotated Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 8, Deng teaches the floor cleaner (Paragraph [0002]) wherein the recovery tank (3) sidewall (Annotated Fig. 5) forms a central axis (Annotated Fig. 5) extending between the bottom portion (Annotated Fig. 5) and the top portion (Annotated Fig. 5), wherein the baffle axis (Annotated Fig. 5) is disposed along the central axis (Annotated Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 9, Deng teaches the floor cleaner (Paragraph [0002]) wherein the central axis (Annotated Fig. 5) and the baffle axis are coaxial (Annotated Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 10, Deng teaches the floor cleaner (Paragraph [0002]) wherein the recovery tank (3) includes a lid assembly (4) removably coupled to the top portion (Annotated Fig. 5) covering an opening in the recovery tank (3), wherein the baffle (712) is connected to the lid (4 – Figure 7 shows the top of the baffle and in an assembled form the baffle top is connected to the lid, 4; Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 11, Deng teaches the floor cleaner (Paragraph [0002]) wherein the baffle (712) is removable from the recovery tank (3) with the lid assembly (both baffle and lid are removable from recovery tank, 3).
Regarding Claim 12, Deng teaches the floor cleaner (Paragraph [0002]) wherein the recovery tank (3) includes an air outlet duct (706) in communication with the recovery tank outlet (402), and wherein the air outlet duct (706) forms at least a portion of the baffle (712; Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 13, Deng teaches the floor cleaner (Paragraph [0002]) wherein the lower end (Annotated Fig. 5) of the baffle wall (7125) is spaced a predetermined distance above the bottom portion (Annotated Fig. 5) of the recovery tank (3).
Regarding Claim 14, Deng teaches the floor cleaner (Paragraph [0002]) wherein the recovery tank inlet (Annotated Fig. 5) is on a back side of the recovery tank (3).
Deng does not teach the inlet passageway is directed toward a forward side of the recovery tank; however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cleaner of Deng to further include the inlet passageway is directed toward a forward side of the recovery tank, as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the direction of a component. A change in direction is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 15, Deng teaches the floor cleaner (Paragraph [0002]) wherein the inlet passageway (6) is directed toward the forward side of the recovery tank (3) in operation (Fig. 5).
Deng does not teach the inlet passageway is directed upwardly; however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cleaner of Deng to further include the inlet passageway is directed upwardly, as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the direction of a component. A change in direction is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 16, Deng teaches the floor cleaner (Paragraph [0002]) wherein the baffle wall (712) includes a cylindrical portion (Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 17, Deng teaches the floor cleaner (Paragraph [0002]) wherein the baffle wall (7125) includes a frusto-conical portion (Fig. 5; Paragraph [0085]).
Regarding Claim 18, Deng teaches the floor cleaner (Paragraph [0002]) wherein the baffle wall (7125) includes a cylindrical portion (Fig. 5) and a frusto-conical portion (Fig. 5; Paragraph [0085]) .
Regarding Claim 19, Deng teaches the floor cleaner (Paragraph [0002]) wherein the wall portion (7125) that is angled forms the frusto-conical portion of the baffle wall (Fig. 5).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Deng is identified as the closest prior art. Although Deng teaches a floor cleaner, the reference fails to teach, suggest or make obvious the baffle includes a first surface toward the clockwise direction that extends downwardly toward the lower end of the baffle wall, and a second surface toward the counterclockwise direction that extends downwardly toward the lower end of the baffle wall, wherein the baffle directs the first portion and the second portion of the stream of liquid in the respective circumferential direction and an axial direction, as required by claim 2; or the baffle includes a first surface toward the clockwise direction that extends downwardly toward the lower end of the baffle wall, and a second surface toward the counterclockwise direction that extends downwardly toward the lower end of the baffle wall, wherein the first surface is between the cylindrical portion and the frusto-conical portion of the baffle wall, wherein the second surface is between the cylindrical portion and the frusto-conical portion of the baffle wall, and wherein the baffle directs the first portion and the second portion of the stream of liquid in the respective circumferential direction and an axial direction, as required by claim 20.
Claim 3 is objected as being a dependent of claim 2.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATINA N HENSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8024. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday; 5:30am to 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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-272-4475. 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.
/KATINA N. HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights