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 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 20, line 18 should read, -- a plurality of linkages coupled to the actuator and the lid--
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1)(2) as being anticipated by Storrs (US 20010001337 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Storrs teaches a vacuum cleaner (20; fig. 4; para. 27) comprising: a top housing (26, outside casing; fig.2; para. 28);
a base (46; fig.2; para.27);
a suction source (26; fig.2; para. 28) positioned within the top housing (fig. 2; para.27) and configured to generate a suction airflow (para. 28) ;
a tank (22, 24, 48; fig. 2; para. 27) positioned between the top housing and the base (as shown in fig. 2; para. 27); the tank configured to receive the suction airflow (para. 28); the tank comprising:
a first tank portion coupled to the base (as annotated in fig. 4 below),
a second tank portion (as annotated in fig. 4 below) is stacked atop the first tank portion (as seen in fig. 4), the second tank portion comprising:
an opening (30; fig. 4; para. 28) formed in an outer surface of the second tank portion (as seen in fig. 4) through which a user is configured to provide debris directly into the tank (para. 28), bypassing the suction airflow (para. 28; suction air flow through the hose, the opening provides an alternative communication to the tank), and
a lid (32; fig.6; para. 28) movable between a closed position where the lid fluidly seals the opening (fig. 2; para. 28), and an open position (fig. 4; para. 28) where the opening fluidly connects an inner volume of the tank and a surrounding environment (fig. 3; para. 28) such that a user is configured to provide debris directly into the tank, bypassing the suction airflow (fig. 3; para. 28).
PNG
media_image1.png
443
518
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 1-7, 9, 10, 12, 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Storrs (US 20010001337 A1) in view of Flider (US 4489860 A).
Regarding claim 1, Storrs discloses
A vacuum cleaner comprising (20; fig.2; para. 28): a top housing (26; fig.2; para. 27);
a base (46; fig.2; para.27);
a suction source configured (26; fig.2; para. 28) to generate a suction airflow (para.28);
a tank (22, 24, 48; fig. 2; para. 27) positioned between the top housing and the base (as shown in fig. 2; para. 27); the tank configured to receive debris via the suction airflow (para. 28);
the tank comprising:
an opening formed in an outer surface of the tank (30; fig. 4; para. 28) through which a user is configured to provide debris directly into the tank (para.28), bypassing the suction airflow (para. 28; suction air flow through the hose, the opening provides an alternative communication to the tank), and
a lid (32; fig.6; para. 28) moveable between a closed position where the lid fluidly seals the opening (fig. 2; para. 28),
and an open position (fig. 4; para. 28) where the opening fluidly connects an inner volume of the tank and a surrounding environment (para. 28; fig. 3).
However, Storrs does not explicitly disclose an actuator coupled to the tank; the actuator configured to transition the lid between the open position and the closed position.
Though, Flider (US 4489860), concerned with the art of a tank with a lid moveable in the open and closed position where the opening fluidly connects an inner volume of the tank to a surrounding environment teaches an actuator (53, Flider; fig. 9; col 9, ll. 19-37) coupled to the tank (fig. 8, Flider; col 9, ll. 19-37, the actuating member indirectly couples to the tank via intermediate linkages); the actuator configured to transition the lid between the open position and the closed position (fig. 8, Flider; col. 9, ll. 1-24, manual movement of the actuating member mechanically transitions the lid open and closed).
Both Storrs and Flider are concerned with the art of a receiving tank apparatus with a maneuverable lid, therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the lid, as taught by Storrs, to the lid taught by Flider, and modify the tank, as taught by Storrs, to further include an actuating member onto the lid that is coupled to the tank, and further include members 51, 65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 71 as taught by Flider, as a means to control the opening of the lid (fig. 8, Flider; col.5, ll. 52- 64).
Regarding claim 2, Storrs in view of Flider teach the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein the tank includes a first tank portion (as annotated in fig. 4 below) and a second tank portion (as annotated in fig. 4 below), wherein the second tank portion is stacked atop the first tank portion (as seen in fig. 4), and wherein the opening is formed on the second tank portion (as seen in fig. 4) and the lid is coupled to the second tank portion (para. 28; fig. 4).
PNG
media_image2.png
506
592
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Storrs in view of Flider teach the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teach wherein the lid is biased towards the closed position (via biasing spring, 71, Flider; fig. 14; col. 8, ll. 38- 58), and wherein the lid transitions from the open position to the closed position when a biasing force on the lid exceeds a force applied to the actuator (for the lid to open a force is required, col. 9, ll. 13-24 , Flider).
Regarding claim 4, Storrs in view of Flider teach the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teach wherein the actuator and the lid pivot (fig. 8, Flider; col. 9, ll. 13-24, Flider teaches a pivot of both members), and
wherein pivoting of the actuator in a first direction also results in pivoting of the lid in the first direction (fig. 8, Flider; col. 9, ll. 13-24, Flider teaches a pivot of both members in a clockwise direction).
Regarding claim 5, Storrs in view of Flider teach the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teach wherein the lid further comprises a handle graspable by the user to transition the lid between the open position and the closed position (as annotated in fig. 8, Flider, the user is able to grasp the sides of the lid, which acts as a handle, to transition the lid from an open to closed position; col. 8, ll. 59-68).
PNG
media_image3.png
761
750
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Storrs in view of Flider teach the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses wherein the actuator and the lid are coupled together via a plurality of linkages (65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 71, Flider; figs. 8-9; col. 8, ll. 25 – 58, the lid and actuator are coupled together via intermediate parts).
Regarding claim 7, Storrs in view of Flider teach the limitations of claim 6, as described above, and further disclose wherein the lid includes a handle (51, Flider; fig. 9; col. 8 ll. 19-27, handle is included in the lid via intermediate parts) graspable by the user to transition the lid between the open position and the closed position (fig. 8; col. 9 ll. 1-11 and 25-39), user is capable of grasping the handle structure), wherein the handle of the lid includes a plurality of recesses (as annotated in fig. 10 below; Flider, col. 8 ll. 25-37), and wherein the plurality of linkages tensioning rods is coupled to the plurality of recesses (fig. 10, Flider; col. 8 ll. 25-37).
PNG
media_image4.png
217
352
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Storrs in view of Flider teach the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teach a seal positioned around an outer periphery of the opening (47, as annotated in fig. 4 below, Storrs; para. 28) against which the lid seals in the closed position (the lid comes into contact with the annotated portion which seals the inside of the chamber from the surrounding environment).
PNG
media_image5.png
298
260
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Storrs in view of Flider teach the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein the base contacts a ground plane (reference teaches casters moving on the ground. Ground plane as annotated in fig. 2; para. 27). However, Storrs in view of Flider does not explicitly disclose wherein the tank defines at least one vertical side wall orthogonal to the ground plane, and wherein the opening, the lid, and the actuator are all positioned on the same sidewall defined by the tank.
However, in regards to wherein the tank defines at least one vertical side wall orthogonal to the ground plane, in re Dailey, (357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)) the court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. MPEP 2144.04. Please note that in the instant application, para. 41, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Furthermore, in regards to wherein the opening, the lid, and the actuator are all positioned on the same sidewall defined by the tank, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to relocate the opening, the lid, and the actuator to the same sidewall defined by the tank (as annotated in fig. 2 below), since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 (VI-C) In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Please note that in the instant application, paras. 46-47, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
PNG
media_image6.png
531
510
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Storrs teaches the limitations of claim 11, as described above, however does not explicitly disclose wherein the lid further comprises a handle graspable by the user to transition the lid between the open position and the closed position.
However, Flider (US 4489860), concerned with the art of a tank with a lid moveable in the open and closed position where the opening fluidly connects an inner volume of the tank to a surrounding environment teaches wherein the lid further comprises a handle (51, Flider; fig. 9; col. 8 ll. 19-27, handle is included in the lid via intermediate parts) graspable by the user (fig. 8; col. 9 ll. 1-11 and 25-39, user is capable of grasping the handle structure) to transition the lid between the open position and the closed position (fig. 8; col. 9 ll. 1-11 and 25-39).
Both Storrs and Flider are concerned with the art of a receiving tank apparatus with a maneuverable lid, therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the lid, as taught by Storrs, with the lid of Flider. In addition, to further include a handle, and additionally members 53, 65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 71, as taught by Flider, as a means to control the opening of the lid (fig. 8, Flider; col.5, ll. 52- 64).
Regarding claim 14, Storrs in view of Flider, teach the limitations of claim 12, as described above, and further disclose an actuator (53, Flider; fig. 9; col 9, ll. 19-37) coupled to the tank (fig. 8, Flider; col 9, ll. 19-37, the actuating member indirectly couples to the tank via intermediate linkages) configured to transition the lid between the open position and the closed position (fig. 8, Flider; col. 9, ll. 1-24, manual movement of the actuating member mechanically transitions the lid open and closed), wherein the lid is pivotable along a lid axis (lid axis is defined as the z-axis as annotated by the reference axis in fig. 8, Flider; col. 9, ll. 13-24), wherein the lid is biased towards the closed position (via biasing spring, 71, Flider; fig. 14; col. 8, ll. 38- 58), and wherein the lid transitions from the open position to the closed position when a biasing force on the lid exceeds a force applied to the actuator for the lid to open a force is required, col. 9, ll. 13-24, Flider).
PNG
media_image7.png
761
750
media_image7.png
Greyscale
However, Storrs in view of Flider does not explicitly disclose an actuator coupled to the first tank portion. Though, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to relocate the actuator to be coupled to the first tank portion, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04 (VI-C)). In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Please note that in the instant application, para. 50, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 15, Storrs in view of Flider teach the limitations of claim 14, as described above, and further teach wherein the actuator and the lid pivot (fig. 8, Flider; col. 9, ll. 13-24, Flider teaches a pivot of both members), and wherein pivoting of the actuator in a first direction also results in pivoting of the lid along the lid axis in the first direction (fig. 8, Flider; col. 9, ll. 13-24, Flider teaches a pivot of both members in a clockwise direction).
Regarding claim 16, Storrs in view of Flider, teach the limitations of claim 15, as described above, and further teach wherein the actuator and the lid are coupled together via plurality of linkages (65, 66, 69, 70, 71, Flider; figs. 8-9; col. 8, ll. 25 – 58, the lid and actuator are coupled together via intermediate parts).
Regarding claim 17, Storrs in view of Flider teach the limitations of claim 16, as described above, and further disclose wherein the handle of the lid includes a first set of recesses(69a Flider, recess is on both sides of handle part 51a; fig. 10; col. 8 ll. 59-68) , a second set of recesses (68a Flider, recess is on both sides of handle part 51a; fig.10; col. 8 ll. 25-37) , and a third set of recesses (the portion of where the actuator fits through the handle on both sides of 51 as annotated below in fig. 8 and fig. 9, Flider; col. 8 ll. 19-28) , wherein a plurality of linkages is coupled to the first set of recesses (linkage 69 is coupled inside recess 69A, the rest of the linkages are connected together; figs. 8 and 9, Flider; col 8. ll. 25-58).
PNG
media_image8.png
753
706
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
530
614
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, Storrs in view of Flider teach the limitations of claim 17, as described above, and further disclose wherein transitioning the lid from the closed position to the open position pivots the lid to a first rotational offset (as shown in fig. 8, Flider 51b; col. 9, ll. 25-39, pivoting the lid creates an angle offset between the lid and its opening for contents to fit through) , away from the opening corresponding to whether the plurality of linkages is coupled to the first set of recesses (fig. 12, Flider shows that in the first set of recesses 69a mechanical actuation occurs between the recess and the intermediate linkage parts; col. 9, ll. 25-39) .
Regarding claim 19, Storrs in view of Flider disclose the limitations of claim 18, as described above, and further teaches wherein the lid axis is defined by a hinge (68, Flider; col. 8, ll. 25-37, connected member are able to rotate about the hinge) coupled to the second tank portion (fig. 2, Storrs; para. 28, opening of the tank is formed in the second tank portion).
Regarding claim 20, Storrs discloses a vacuum cleaner (20; fig. 4; para. 27) comprising: a top housing (26, outside casing; fig.2; para. 28);
a base (46; fig.2; para.27);
a suction source (26; fig.2; para. 28) configured to generate a suction airflow (fig. 2; para.27);
a tank (22, 24, 48; fig. 2; para. 27) positioned between the top housing and the base (as shown in fig. 2; para. 27); the tank configured to receive the suction airflow; the tank comprising:
a first tank portion coupled to the base (as annotated in fig. 4 below),
a second tank portion (as annotated in fig. 4 below) is stacked atop the second tank portion (as seen in fig. 4), the second tank portion comprising:
an opening (30; fig. 4; para. 28) formed in an outer surface of the tank (as seen in fig. 4) through which a user is configured to provide debris directly into the tank (para.28), bypassing the suction airflow (para. 28; suction air flow through the hose, the opening provides an alternative communication to the tank), and a lid (32; para. 28).
PNG
media_image10.png
443
520
media_image10.png
Greyscale
However, Storrs does not explicitly disclose a lid defining a handle integrally formed on a surface of the lid, the lid being pivotable along a lid axis between a closed position where the lid fluidly seals the opening, and an open position where the opening fluidly connects an inner volume of the tank and a surrounding environment; an actuator is coupled to the tank; the actuator configured to transition the lid between the open position and the closed position,
a plurality of linkages coupled to the actuator and the lid,
wherein the lid is openable from the closed position to the open position via a user input to the actuator, and wherein the lid is openable from the closed position to the open position via a user input to the handle.
Though, Flider (US 4489860 A) concerned with the art of a tank with a lid moveable in the open and closed position where the opening fluidly connects an inner volume of the tank to a surrounding environment teaches a lid defining a handle integrally formed on a surface of the lid (as annotated in fig. 8, Flider, the user is able to grasp the sides of the lid, which acts as a handle, to transition the lid from an open to closed position; col. 8, ll. 59-68), the lid being pivotable (fig. 8, Flider; col. 9, ll. 13-24, Flider teaches a pivot of the lid ) along a lid axis (lid axis is defined as the z-axis as annotated by the reference axis in fig. 8, Flider; col. 9, ll. 13-24) between a closed position where the lid fluidly seals the opening (fig. 8, Flider; col. 9, ll. 1-24), and an open position where the opening fluidly connects an inner volume of the tank and a surrounding environment (fig. 8, Flider; col. 9, ll. 1-24),
wherein an actuator (51 and 53, Flider; fig. 9; col 9, ll. 19-37) is coupled to the tank (fig. 8, Flider; col 9, ll. 19-37, the actuating member indirectly couples to the tank via intermediate linkages); the actuator configured to transition the lid between the open position and the closed position (fig. 8, Flider; col. 9, ll. 1-24, manual movement of the actuating member mechanically transitions the lid open and closed),
a plurality of linkages (65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 71, Flider; figs. 8-9; col. 8, ll. 25 – 58, the lid and actuator are coupled together via intermediate parts) coupled to the actuator and the lid,
wherein the lid is openable from the closed position to the open position via a user input to the actuator (fig. 8, Flider; col. 9 ll. 1-39), and wherein the lid is openable from the closed position to the open position via a user input to the handle (the user is able to grasp the sides of the lid, which acts as a handle, to transition the lid from an open to closed position; col. 8, ll. 59-68).
PNG
media_image11.png
494
487
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
303
439
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Both Storrs and Flider are concerned with the art of a receiving tank apparatus with a maneuverable lid, therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tank, as taught by Storrs, to further include an actuator coupled to it, as taught by Flider. In addition, replacing the lid, as taught by Storrs, with the lid taught by Flider, and to have linkages coupled to the lid and actuator, as taught by Flider as a means to control the opening of the lid (fig. 8, Flider; col.5, ll. 52- 64).
Claims 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Storrs (US 20010001337 A1) in view of Flider (US 4489860 A) and further in view of Rhoades (US 4363417 A).
Regarding claim 8, Storrs in view of Flider teach the limitations of claim 1, as described above, though does not teach wherein the lid further comprises a guide configured to direct debris into the opening.
However, Rhoades (US 4363417 A), concerned with the art of a debris collecting tank, teaches wherein the lid further comprises a guide (74 and 76, Rhoades; fig. 2; col. 4, ll. 57-68) configured to direct debris into the opening (Rhoades, col. 4, ll. 57-68).
Both Storrs in view of Flider and Rhoades are concerned with the art of a debris collecting apparatus, therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lid, as taught by Storrs in view of Flider, to further include a guide, as taught by Rhoades, as a means for lateral containment of debris, to guide it into the receptacle (Rhoades, col. 4, ll. 57-68).
Regarding claim 13, Storrs in view of Flider teach the limitations of claim 12, as described above, though does not explicitly disclose wherein the lid includes a set of guides, wherein in the open position the set of guides are configured to direct debris into the opening, and wherein in the closed position the set of guides extend through the opening into the inner volume the tank.
However, Rhoades (US 4363417 A), concerned with the art of a debris collecting tank, teaches wherein the lid includes a set of guides (74 and 76, Rhoades; fig. 2; col. 4 ll. 57-68), wherein in the open position the set of guides are configured to direct debris into the opening (fig.2, Rhoades; col. 4 ll. 57-68), and wherein in the closed position the set of guides extend through the opening into the inner volume the tank (fig.4, Rhoades; col. 4 ll. 57-68).
Both Storrs in view of Flider and Rhoades are concerned with the art of a debris collecting apparatus, therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lid, as taught by Storrs in view of Flider, to further include a guide wherein in the open position the set of guides are configured to direct debris into the opening, and wherein in the closed position the set of guides extend through the opening into the inner volume the tank, as taught by Rhoades, as a means for lateral containment of debris, to guide it into the receptacle (Rhoades, col. 4, ll. 57-68).
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