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
Claims 1-8,10-11,13-14,16-22 and 24 are pending. Claims 1, 21, and 22 are currently amended. Claim 24 is new.
Claim Objections
In claims 21 and 22, consider -- includes/including an [[first]] upper end and a lower end along the suction pathway, the lower end adjacent the suction nozzle inlet--, to provide adequate support for the later limitations referring to the upper end and the lower end-- This language would also make it consistent with claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White (US 20120204377 A1) in view of Xiao (CN 102028433 A, previously cited).
PNG
media_image1.png
628
947
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ann. fig. 30 (White)
With respect to claim 1, White discloses: An extraction cleaner ([0047], describing an accessory for use with an extraction cleaner; the abstract provides that extraction cleaners are vacuum cleaners) including an accessory hose (630, fig. 27; [0098]) in fluid communication with a suction source (628, fig. 27; [0097], the fan draws fluid so it is a suction source) the extraction cleaner comprising:
a cleaning tool including a forward end and a rear end that is adapted to couple with the hose at the rear end (cleaning tool 610, fig. 27; [0098-0099]; forward end immediately leftward of 644 fig. 30, [0098] and rear end at 642, fig. 30; rear end adapted to couple to hose as in [0098]; see also ann. fig. 30, above) the cleaning tool comprising: a tool body defining a suction pathway extending from the forward end to the rear end in fluid communication with the suction source (tool body 640, fig. 30, [0098], with a suction pathway flow defined by arrows in fig. 30 entering at 644 and exiting at 642, [0098]) the tool body comprising: a removable tank as part of the tool body of the cleaning tool (650, fig. 29, removable as in [0100] through the use of a retaining mechanism 652), a suction nozzle defining a suction nozzle inlet in communication with the suction pathway (suction nozzle 644, fig. 30; [0098-0099]), the suction nozzle including a lens (outside/exposed surface of 644, fig. 29; [0098-0099], which is transparent as in [0101], thus forming a lens/cover), the lens defining a suction channel (the cover 644 forms a channel, beginning at the inlet at the end of the leader line of 644, fig. 30, [0098-0099]), wherein the lens is disposed forward from the suction nozzle inlet (the suction inlet is the opening at the location 644, fig. 30, therefore the transparent cover is forward to the left of it as shown in figs. 29-30; see ann. fig. 30); wherein the lens includes an upper end and a lower end, the lower end adjacent the suction nozzle inlet (see an upper end proximate to end of leader line to 664, fig. 30 and a lower end proximate to leader line 644, fig. 30) and an adapter portion defining an outlet to the suction pathway and configured to selectively couple the tool with the hose (adapter portion at end of 642, fig. 30, which is adapted to connect to a hose as in [0098]),
however, does not explicitly teach wherein the lens is adjustable between at least a first position including a first suction channel depth and a second position including a second suction channel depth, wherein in the second position the lens is extended forwardly the second suction channel depth is larger than the first suction channel depth along at least a portion of a length of the suction channel, from the upper end to the lower end of the lens.
Xiao, in the same field of endeavor, related to suction/vacuum cleaning, teaches of providing a nozzle with outer covers (walls 7 and 8, fig. 3, [0039], the covers of Xiao are analogous to how the lens [outside surface of 644] in White forms a suction channel), adjustable between at least a first position including a first suction channel depth and a second position including a second suction channel depth (the walls can be expandable through a corrugated arrangement 6, fig. 3 as in [0039, 0044], leading to a different width of suction port 10, figs. 3-4, [0047]), wherein in the second position the cover is extended forwardly the second suction channel depth is larger than the first suction channel depth along at least a portion of a length of the suction channel (in an outward/forward extended portion, the channel at 10 depth/width is greater, figs. 3-4 , [0047]; depth interpreted to be cross section of suction opening consistent with instant figs. 9-10.) Xiao teaches that this arrangement allows meeting the needs of different cleaning such as deep gaps or wide areas ([0047], [0004] provides that the arrangement is suitable for a variety of different surfaces).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing at of the claimed invention, to have modified White, with the adjustable cover (or lens, as incorporated into White), for the purpose of meeting the needs of cleaning different types of surfaces, which may require different suction forces. The examiner notes that the term “forwardly” depends on the perspective from what point is fixed, as in White, should the lens be a fixed reference point, the part of the cleaning tool rear of it, from that perspective is moved, and should the rear part of the cleaning tool be a fixed reference point, from that perspective, the lens/cover is moved. As for the second suction channel depth is larger than the first suction channel depth from the upper end to the lower end of the lens, the walls of Xiao, analogous to the lens/cover, is adjustable such that the suction channel expands from the upper end [where it pivots as part of the corrugated arrangement] to the lower end, which would analogously apply to the lens of White.
With respect to claim 17, White as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches wherein the lens is adjustable between at least a constricted position and an extended position wherein in the extended position a volume of the suction channel is increased relative to a volume of the suction channel in the constricted position (Xiao, the position shown in fig .4 is constricted, while the position shown in fig. 3 is extended, which provides for a different cleaning volume).
Claim(s) 2, 4, 11, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White (US 20120204377 A1) in view of Xiao (CN 102028433 A), and further in view of Hollis (US 20130145576 A1).
With respect to claim 2, White as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches an agitator block coupled to the suction nozzle (White, 656, fig. 30, [0104], coupled to the suction nozzle through overall assembly), however does not explicitly teach, wherein the agitator block is adjustable between an agitation position and a self-clean position.
Hollis, in the same field of endeavor, related to cleaning, teaches of an agitator block is adjustable between an agitation position and a self-clean position (agitator block as bristle plate 12, fig. 1 with a plurality of bristles 10, and a pivot axis 16, [0040-0041] and can pivot upon either a horizontal or vertical axis as in [0048], and has a in use [agitation] position in fig. 2, [0041], half way position in fig. 3; [0045], and self-cleaning position in fig. 4, [0051]). Hollis teaches that this self-cleaning position is provided so that airflow can remove debris from without having to touch the bristles ([0055], the air flow noted to be provided by silts (22, fig. 4, [0052] which enable air to flow freely), and that touching the bristles can be disagreeable and time consuming ([0009])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing at of the claimed invention, to have modified White to include the agitator block agitator block is adjustable between an agitation position and a self-clean position, as taught by Hollis, so that the user can clean the bristles without having to touch the bristles, with the additional advantage of saving time needed to clean the bristles.
With respect to claim 4, White as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 2 above, and further teaches further comprising at least one fluid distributor for supplying a cleaning fluid (White, 660, fig. 30, [0103]).
With respect to claim 11, White as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 2 above, and further teaches wherein in the self-clean position, the agitator block covers the suction nozzle inlet, and, in the agitation position, the agitator block is disposed rearward of the suction nozzle inlet (Hollis, when self-cleaning, the agitator is positioned to cover the suction inlet, as the bristles are rotated/inverted towards the nozzle so that airflow can remove the debris as described in [0051,0055], the agitator is disposed rearward of the inlet as shown by the placement of 656, fig. 30 in White [examiner notes that disposed covering the suction inlet and rearward are not mutually exclusive, as this depends on the perspective from which one views the apparatus]).
PNG
media_image2.png
491
359
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ann. fig. 29 (White)
With respect to claim 13, White as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 2 above, and further teaches wherein the agitator block includes a plurality of openings and a plurality of nubs (Hollis, openings 22, fig. 4, [0052] which enable air to flow freely; White nubs on side of agitator block, ann. fig. 29, above).
Claim(s) 5-7, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White (US 20120204377 A1) in view of Xiao (CN 102028433 A) and Hollis (US 20130145576 A1), and further in view of Royale (US 20190104906 A1).
With respect to claim 5, White as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 4 above, however does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one fluid distributor includes a plurality of outlets disposed within the suction channel.
Royale, in the same field of endeavor, related to cleaning, teaches of providing a plurality of outlets disposed within a suction channel (nozzles [plural] 184, which is on block 180, figs. 8 and 11-12, which are open at a suction nozzle close to opening 152 as in [0067-0068]). Royale teaches this arrangement flushes out the tool ([0087,0089]), and that flushing out bacteria in the tool can reduce odors ([0054]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing at of the claimed invention, to have modified White to include at least one fluid distributor includes a plurality of outlets disposed within the suction channel, as taught by Royale, for the purpose of reducing bacteria and odors in the tool.
With respect to claim 6, White as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 5 above, and further teaches wherein in the self-clean position, agitators are disposed within the suction channel adjacent the plurality of outlets (Hollis, self-cleaning position in fig. 4, [0051] {compared to a in use [agitation] position in fig. 2, [0041] in Hollis}, the agitators would be facing inward, which would be adjacent to the outlets, because the outlets of Royale are open at a suction nozzle close to opening 152 as in [0067-0068]).
With respect to claim 7, White as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 4 above, however does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one fluid distributor is in a form of a spray bar defining a plurality of serially aligned outlets.
Royale, in the same field of endeavor, related to cleaning, teaches at least one fluid distributor is in a form of a spray bar defining a plurality of serially aligned outlets (nozzles 184, which is on block 180, figs. 8 and 11-12, which are open at a suction nozzle close to opening 152 as in [0067-0068]). Royale teaches this arrangement flushes out the tool ([0087,0089]), and that flushing out bacteria in the tool can reduce odors ([0054]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing at of the claimed invention, to have modified White to include at least one fluid distributor in the form of a spray bar defining a plurality of serially aligned outlets, disposed within the suction channel, as taught by Royale, for the purpose of reducing bacteria and odors in the tool.
With respect to claim 10, White, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 2 above, however does not explicitly teach in the self-clean position, agitators extend from the agitator block toward at least one fluid distributor.
White, however teaches at least one fluid distributor for supplying a cleaning fluid (White, 660, fig. 30, [0103]).
Royale, in the same field of endeavor, related to cleaning, teaches of providing a plurality of outlets disposed within a suction channel (nozzles 184, which is on block 180, figs. 8 and 11-12, which are open at a suction nozzle close to opening 152 as in [0067-0068]). Royale teaches this arrangement flushes out the tool ([0087,0089]), and that flushing out bacteria in the tool can reduce odors ([0054]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing at of the claimed invention, to have modified White to include at least one fluid distributor includes a plurality of outlets disposed within the suction channel, as taught by Royale, for the purpose of reducing bacteria and odors in the tool. The arrangement would have resulted in the self-clean position, having agitators extend from the agitator block toward at least one fluid distributor, as Hollis, provides that self-cleaning position (fig. 4, [0051] {compared to a in use [agitation] position in fig. 2, [0041] in Hollis}, the agitators would be facing inward, agitators extend from the agitator block toward at least one fluid distributor, because the outlets of Royale are open at a suction nozzle close to opening (close to opening 152 as in [0067-0068]; where when the agitator block is flipped to face towards the inlet, the agitator bristles extending at the suction opening).
Claim(s) 4, 8, 14, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White (US 20120204377 A1) in view of Xiao (CN 102028433 A) and Hollis (US 20130145576 A1), and further in view of De Wit (US 20160296087 A1).
With respect to claim 4, White as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 2 above, however does not explicitly teach wherein the agitator block rotates about a longitudinal axis of the suction nozzle between the agitation position and the self-clean position. Hollis, further provides that provides that to switch between the positions, the agitator block can pivot upon either a horizontal [a horizontal axis can be understood as a longitudinal axis of the suction nozzle] or vertical axis as in [0048]).
De Wit, in the same field of endeavor related to cleaning, teaches of providing a pivoting cleaning block that pivots about a longitudinal axis (see cleaning block 3, axis A-A; [0043-0043]; figs. 2-3). MPEP 2143 provides that simple substitution of one element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing at of the claimed invention, to have modified White such that the agitator block rotates about a longitudinal axis of the suction nozzle between the agitation position and the self-clean position, using the teaching of De Wit, as a substitution of the pivot axis place of the pivot axis taught by Hollis, to obtain predictable results. This arrangement would have been predictable, especially as Hollis provides for different pivot axes.
With respect to claim 8, White as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 2 above, and however does not explicitly teach wherein the agitator block includes a plurality of openings and at least one of the plurality of openings extends to a perimeter edge of the agitator block. Hollis, further teaches of wherein the agitator block includes a plurality of openings (openings 22, fig. 4, [0052] which enable air to flow freely).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing at of the claimed invention, to have modified White such that the agitator block includes a plurality of openings, for the purpose of enabling the air to flow freely.
As for the limitation of at least one of the plurality of openings extends to a perimeter edge of the agitator block, De Wit, in the same field of endeavor, provides for a cleaning block with an air flow opening extending to a perimeter edge (22B, fig. 4; [0045]). De Wit teaches that this arrangement increases the velocity of the air being sucked in and improves the cleaning ability ([0045]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing at of the claimed invention, to have modified White to include at least one of the plurality of openings extends to a perimeter edge of the agitator block, using the teachings of De wit, for improved cleaning.
With respect to claim 14, White as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 13 above, and however does not explicitly teach wherein the agitator block includes a plurality of openings and at least one of the plurality of openings extends to a perimeter edge of the agitator block. Hollis, further teaches of wherein the agitator block includes a plurality of openings (openings 22, fig. 4, [0052] which enable air to flow freely).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing at of the claimed invention, to have modified White such that the agitator block includes a plurality of openings, for the purpose of enabling the air to flow freely.
As for the limitation of at least one of the plurality of openings extends to a perimeter edge of the agitator block, De Wit, in the same field of endeavor, provides for a cleaning block with an air flow opening extending to a perimeter edge (22B, fig. 4; [0045]). De Wit teaches that this arrangement increases the velocity of the air being sucked in and improves the cleaning ability ([0045]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing at of the claimed invention, to have modified White to include at least one of the plurality of openings extends to a perimeter edge of the agitator block, using the teachings of De wit, for improved cleaning.
With respect to claim 16, White, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 2 above, however does not explicitly teach a lever coupled to the agitator block, wherein upon rotation of the lever, the agitator block flips between the agitation position and the self-clean position. Hollis, however teaches that it is undesirable to touch the brush bristles (Hollis, [0009]), and that the brush is rotated to/from a self-clean position (Hollis, with a pivot axis 16, [0040-0041] and has a in use [agitation] position in fig. 2, [0041], half way position in fig. 3; [0045], and self-cleaning position in fig. 4, [0051]).
De Wit, in the same filed of endeavor, related to cleaning, teaches of providing a lever to actuate a brush between two positions (lever arm 16, figs. 2 and 3; [0041,0055], providing for a rotational movement). De Wit teaches that this arrangement “enables the user to rotate the base relative to the body without directly touching the base so that the user does not need to touch any debris accumulated on the base” ([0014]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing at of the claimed invention, to have modified White to include a lever coupled to the agitator block, wherein upon rotation of the lever, the agitator block flips between the agitation position and the self-clean position, using the teachings of De Wit, to reduce the need to touch the brush/agitator when changing positions.
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White (US 20120204377 A1) in view of Xiao (CN 102028433 A), and further in view of Davila (US 20200060502 A1) and Palmer (US 4803753 A).
With respect to claim 18, White, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches a lid configured to selectively cover the access opening to the reservoir, wherein the lid includes at least one aperture (White, a separator 654, fig. 29, [0106], that provides the tortuous path 680 shown in fig. 30, [0112]) however does not explicitly teach the at least one aperture including a screen therein.
Davila, in the same field of endeavor, related to cleaning, teaches of providing multiple apertures in a water separator with screens (apertures 96 with screens 101, fig. 10, [0048]). Davila teaches that this arrangement is of a cup shape (part of cage 94, fig. 10), that is cleanable by the user and filters suction air flow ([0048]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing at of the claimed invention, to have modified White to include the aperture arrangement with screens taught by Davila, for the purpose of filtering suction air flow while also being allowing disassembly by the user for cleaning.
Palmer, in the same field of endeavor, related to cleaning, further teaches that vacuum openings need to be protected from the entry of debris (col 3 lines 35-41). Therefore, it would also have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing at of the claimed invention, to have modified White to include the aperture arrangement with screens taught by Davila, because it is shown that vacuum openings needed to be protected from the entry of debris.
With respect to claim 19, White, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 18 above, and further teaches wherein the at least one aperture further comprises a pair of apertures, each including a screen therein (Davila, apertures 96 [plural, including a pair] with screens 101, fig. 10, [0048]).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White (US 20120204377 A1) in view of Xiao (CN 102028433 A), and further in view of Andrisin (US 6353964 B1).
With respect to claim 20, White teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, however does not explicitly teach wherein the tank includes a flared configuration. However, White teaches of a cylindrical tank (White, 650, fig. 29).
Andrisin, in the same field of endeavor, related to cleaning, teaches of a flared-shaped tank that contains recovered liquid (34, fig. 1; col 2 lines 37-52).
MPEP 2143 provides that substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious to one of ordinarily skill in the art.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing at of the claimed invention, to have modified White, and have substituted a cylindrical shaped tank for a flared configuration taught by Andrisin, both for the same purpose of collecting fluid. The result would have been predictable to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21 and 22 are allowable, subject to the outstanding informalities as noted in the claim objections above. Claim 24 is 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. Xiao, in combination with White, cited above, represents the closest prior art with respect to claims 21, 22 and 24. Xiao, in particular, teaches of an adjustable suction nozzle, however, does not disclose a suction nozzle where “the second suction channel depth increases between the upper end and the lower end of the lens of the entire suction channel”, (claim 21) “wherein the second air pass is larger than the first air pass between the upper end and the lower end of the lens along the entire suction channel” (claim 22) or “wherein in the second position the second suction channel depth is larger than the first suction channel depth along the entire suction channel from the upper end to the lower end of the lens” (claim 24), as Xiao provides for a hinged arrangement at one end with a constant depth/air pass at that end. Strohmeyer (DE 102004055125 A1, cited on 10/16/2025) teaches of an arrangement that pivots out to expand a width of the suction channel, however an upper end does not vary in size given the hinged arrangement, Hsu (TW M247171 U, cited on 07/01/2025) has an adjustable width suction nozzle however it expands longitudinally outward, and Barrick (US 20060272120 A1, previously cited on 07/01/2025) provides for a flip open lens that opens at one end, however none of these render claims 21, 22 and 24 anticipated, or obvious, when the claim is considered as whole.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1 (response page 7), the applicant takes the position that because Xiao is fixed at the upper end of the cover/walls, it cannot meet the limitation of where “the second suction channel depth is larger than the first suction channel depth from the upper end to the lower end of the lens” The examiner respectfully disagrees with this interpretation of Xiao and of the claim language, and the examiner takes the position, since Xiao expands in width from the upper end (where it is pivoted) to the lower end, the limitations is met.
The examiner agrees that claims 21 and 22 (and claim 24 which is not specifically mentioned in the response) is allowable over the prior art.
The arguments directed to the other claims are that the independent claim 1 overcome Xiao and White, and are also allowable, however no specific arguments were presented with respect to the limitations found in the dependent claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Steven Huang whose telephone number is (571)272-6750. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 6:30 am to 2:30 pm, Friday 6:30 am to 11:00 am (Eastern Time).
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.
/Steven Huang/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights