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 .
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges he amendments. The previous rejections are withdrawn. The previous drawing objections are withdrawn New rejections are set forth herein and are made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 32-39, 42-45, and 47-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 32 recites the limitation “the wand has a constant diameter from the lower end of the wand to the upper end of the wand”. This limitation does not appear in the specification. The wand is shown in Figures 80 and 81. Figures 80 and 81 only show one cross section, and does now show a view showing the diameter from the front. Further, in paragraphs 67, 88, 103 of the instant application, its discussed that the radial outerwall of the dirt collection chamber is non circular. In paragraph 484 its discussed “It will be appreciated that, in any embodiment, the cyclone chamber need not be circular and/or the dirt collection chamber need not have a uniform radial width”
Claims 33-39, 42-45, and 47-52 are rejected due to dependency.
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.
Claims 32-39, 42-44, and 47-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsujii (JPH08322769) in view of Stickney (US 2012/0079671) in view of Korf (US 2002/0178696).
Regarding claim 32, Tsuji discloses a surface cleaner comprising:
an air flow path extending from a dirty air inlet to a clean outlet;
a suction motor (Paragraph 15) operable to move air along the air flow path;
a surface cleaning head;
a wand including:
a lower end (Item 6) and an upper end (Item 10) axially spaced apart from the lower end,
an axially extending sidewall extending from the lower end to the upper end of the wand (Figure 3, exterior housing),
an axially extending air chamber (Item 3 or 7, depending on claim interpretation for dependents),
an axially extending dirt collection chamber (Item 14) positioned side-by-side of the air chamber within the wand, the dirt collection chamber configured to collect dirt separated from the air moving along the air flow path,
an axially extending separator dividing an internal volume of the wand into the air chamber and the dirt collection chamber (Item 4 or item 8)
a removable handle separable from the wand (Figure 1 shows a handle that is detached in Figure 2)
Tsujii fails to explicitly disclose a removable surface cleaning head AND wherein the wand further includes a storage configuration where the wand is upright and an in-use configuration where the wand is reclined, the suction motor being above the air chamber in the storage configuration.
Stickney teaches a vacuum cleaner wherein a removable surface cleaning head AND wherein the wand further includes a storage configuration where the wand is upright and an in-use configuration where the wand is reclined, the suction motor being above the air chamber in the storage configuration (Item 25 and 21) and a removable handle (Items 3 and 23). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tsujii to include the articulated cleaning head of Stickney. Such a modification would allow the cleaning head to detach and rotate. This would allow the cleaning head to reach under furniture easier and stay in contact with the floor more easily when going around turns (Stickney Paragraph 13-15).
Tsujii fails to explicitly disclose wherein the wand has a constant diameter from the lower end of the wand to the upper end of the wand .
Korf teaches a vacuum cleaner wherein the wand (Item 38) has a constant diameter from the lower end of the wand to the upper end of the wand (best shown in Figures 5 and 5a). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tsujii to have the cylindrical wand as taught by Korf. Such a modification is viewed as a change in shape, which has been held to be of routine by one skilled in the art (see MPEP 2144.04). Making the outer casing cylindrical (or any other shape) could easily support all the internal baffles, supports and pipes, to properly guide the flow of air, while still being aesthetically pleasing to the user. Further, in the instant application there is no criticality discussed for the constant diameter.
Regarding claim 33, Tsuji in view of Stickney in view of Korf disclose the surface cleaner of Claim 32, wherein at least fifty percent (50%) of the air chamber axially extends concurrently with at least fifty percent (50%) of the dirt collection chamber (Tsujii Figure 3).
Regarding claim 34, Tsuji in view of Stickney in view of Korf disclose the surface cleaner of Claim 32, wherein at least a portion of the sidewall forms a cylinder (Tsuji Figure 2).
Regarding claim 35, Tsuji in view of Stickney in view of Korf disclose the surface cleaner of Claim 32. As currently modified, Tsujii fails to explicitly disclose wherein the handle houses one or more batteries.
Stickney further teaches wherein the handle houses one or more batteries (Paragraph 32). 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 floor vacuum cleaner for the vacuum cleaner mounted to the handle as taught by Stickney. Both are known types of vacuum cleaners. The handle cleaner of Stickney does not require a user to drag along a vacuum cleaner or a power cable. Making the vacuum more portable, and easier to maneuver.
Regarding claim 36, Tsuji in view of Stickney in view of Korf disclose the surface cleaner of Claim 35, wherein at least one battery is aligned lengthwise along an axis of the wand (Stickney Figure 2).
Regarding claim 37, Tsuji in view of Stickney in view of Korf disclose the surface cleaner of Claim 32, wherein the lower end of the wand comprises connector inlet (Stickney Item 21).
Regarding claim 38, Tsuji in view of Stickney in view of Korf disclose the surface cleaner of Claim 37, wherein the surface cleaning head removably connects to the connector inlet (Stickney Paragraph 36).
Regarding claim 39, Tsuji in view of Stickney in view of Korf disclose the surface cleaner of Claim 38. As currently modified, Tsuji fails to explicitly disclose wherein when the surface cleaning head is removed, a vacuum accessory connects to the connector inlet, the vacuum accessory includes one or more of a rigid air flow conduit, a crevice tool, and a mini brush.
Korf teaches a vacuum cleaner wherein when the surface cleaning head is removed, a vacuum accessory connects to the connector inlet, the vacuum accessory includes one or more of a rigid air flow conduit, a crevice tool, and a mini brush (Paragraph 72). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tsuji to include the accessory cleaning tools of Korf. Different cleaning surfaces/scenarios require different vacuum tools. The vacuum head of Tsuiji and Stickney are efficient at cleaning a flat floor surface. While a smaller crevice tool is more beneficial for vacuuming stairs, couches, and other areas that aren’t flat. By reducing the inlet area, a greater suction force can be generated.
Regarding claim 42, Tsuji in view of Stickney in view of Korf disclose the surface cleaner of Claim 32, comprising an air treatment chamber, the air treatment chamber including the air chamber, the separator and the dirt collection chamber (Tsuji Figure 3; in the instant application, Item 35860 is a “cyclone chamber” and points to the negative space within the housing that the dust separates. This is the same interpretation being taken for Tsuji)
Regarding claim 43, Tsuji in view of Stickney in view of Korf disclose the surface cleaner of Claim 42, wherein separation of the dirt from the air flow is primarily accomplished only by the air treatment chamber (Tsuji Item 2 and 3 does a large portion of the air filtration).
Regarding claim 44, Tsuji in view of Stickney in view of Korf disclose the surface cleaner of Claim 32, wherein the dirt collection chamber is openable to remove collected dirt (Tsuji Paragraph 31).
Regarding claim 47, Tsuji in view of Stickney in view of Korf disclose the surface cleaner of Claim 32, wherein the wand has an air flow path extending from an air flow path inlet at the lower end of the wand to an air flow path outlet at the upper end of the wand with the air chamber positioned in the air flow path and, in operation, air travels linearly through the air flow passage from the air flow path inlet to the interior of the air chamber (best shown in Figure 3 of Tsuji, air travels through the inlet, and into the air chamber before turning. The air chamber for this claim interpretation is inside of the outer diameter of the wand).
Regarding claim 48, Tsuji in view of Stickney in view of Korf disclose the surface cleaner of Claim 47, wherein the air chamber air inlet is at a lower end of the air chamber (best shown in Figure 3 of Tsuji).
Regarding claim 49, Tsuji in view of Stickney in view of Korf disclose the surface cleaner of Claim 48, wherein, in operation, air travels in a single direction through the wand (the air flow path of Tsuji is from the bottom to the top, as it is shown in Figure 13 of the instant application. Starting in paragraph 263 of the instant application, its discussed how the unidirectional flow allows for the air to travel in a single direction. But as shown in Figure 13, in a general sense travel from a bottom to a top in a dominantly aligned axis (generally speaking), but it discusses a cyclone which requires the air flow to be cylindrical. Thus since Tsuji teaches from the bottom to the top in a generally aligned direction, it is the same as the instant application).
Regarding claim 50, Tsuji in view of Stickney in view of Korf disclose the surface cleaner of Claim 32, wherein the air chamber air inlet is at a lower end of the air chamber (best shown in Figure 3 of Tsuji).
Regarding claim 51, Tsuji in view of Stickney in view of Korf disclose the surface cleaner of Claim 50, wherein, in operation, air travels in a single direction through the wand (the air flow path of Tsuji is from the bottom to the top, as it is shown in Figure 13 of the instant application. Starting in paragraph 263 of the instant application, its discussed how the unidirectional flow allows for the air to travel in a single direction. But as shown in Figure 13, in a general sense travel from a bottom to a top in a dominantly aligned axis (generally speaking), but it discusses a cyclone which requires the air flow to be cylindrical. Thus since Tsuji teaches from the bottom to the top in a generally aligned direction, it is the same as the instant application).
Regarding claim 52, Tsuji in view of Stickney in view of Korf disclose the surface cleaner of Claim 50, wherein the air chamber is the sole air treatment chamber of the surface cleaner (as discussed in paragraph 27 of Tsuji, clean air exits the cyclone assembly Item 1 and 2. Depending on the level of clean air that is desired, Tsuji can be used on its own or along with other air separation devices. Please note Stickney only uses one air separation device and Korff (para 73) discusses how the wand can be used in any vacuum environment).
Claims 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsujii (JPH08322769) in view of Stickney (US 2012/0079671) in view of Korf (US 2002/0178696) in view of Brook (Wo 2014174248)
Regarding claim 45, Tsuji in view of Stickney in view of Korf disclose the surface cleaner of Claim 32. Tsuji fails to explicitly disclose wherein the surface cleaning head includes a powered brush roll.
Brook teaches a vacuum cleaner with a powered brush roll ((Page 2 Lines 11-15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tsuji to include the brush roll of Fukuda. Brush rolls help pick up dust and makes the vacuum more efficient (Brook p2 ll 11-15).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 3/6/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 32 under Tsuji in view of Stickney have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Tsuji in view of Stickney in view of Korf.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOM R RODGERS whose telephone number is (313)446-4849. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8AM-5PM EST.
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, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. 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.
/TOM RODGERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723