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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 9/10/2024, 12/9/2024, and 6/1/2026 are being considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the table in claim 13 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1, 9-12, 15, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrad (US 2019/0082925) in view of Lenkiewicz (US 2012/0222235).
Regarding claim 1, Conrad discloses a method of operating a surface cleaner, the method comprising:
providing a body having a lower portion (Item 384) and an upper portion (Near Item 386) opposite the lower portion, the upper portion including a handle (Item 386);
providing a base (Item 102) pivotably coupled to the lower portion of the body (Paragraph 510);
providing a canister assembly (Item 120) removably coupled to the body;
providing a hose (Item 122) having a first end coupled to the canister assembly and fluidly connected to the recovery tank and a second end coupled to the base and fluidly connected to a nozzle (the nozzle is the inlet of the suction, for example either at 104 in figure 1 or 104a in Figure 3);
providing a suction source (Item 124) in fluid communication with the recovery tank;
operating the surface cleaner in an upright cleaning mode with the canister assembly coupled to the body (Figure 2), operating in the upright cleaning mode includes
positioning the nozzle of the base adjacent to the cleaning surface;
moving the nozzle over the cleaning surface by moving the base across the cleaning surface using the handle of the body while the canister assembly is coupled to the body and moving the nozzle over the cleaning surface includes pivoting the body relative to the base using the handle, and
operating the suction source to draw fluid and debris from the cleaning surface, through the nozzle, through the hose, and into the recovery tank; and
operating the surface cleaner in an auxiliary cleaning mode with the canister assembly uncoupled from the body and the nozzle coupled to the base (Figure 4), operating in the auxiliary cleaning mode includes
positioning the nozzle of the base adjacent to the cleaning surface;
moving the nozzle over the cleaning surface by moving the base across the cleaning surface using the handle of the body while the canister assembly is uncoupled from the body and moving the nozzle over the cleaning surface includes pivoting the body relative to the base using the handle, and
operating the suction source to draw fluid and debris from the cleaning surface, through the nozzle, through the hose, and into the recovery tank.
Conrad fails to explicitly disclose providing a canister assembly removably coupled to the body, the canister assembly includes a housing, a supply tank, and a recovery tank. Although Conrad eludes to the cleaner having different embodiment that could have a supply tank and recovery tank, it’s not particularly clear there is an embodiment the supply tank and the recovery tank can be removed from the base and still be operational.
Lenkiewicz teaches a surface cleaner wherein a canister assembly (Item 22) removably coupled to the body (Abstract and Paragraph 31), the canister assembly includes a housing (Item 30), a supply tank (Item 26), and a recovery tank (Item 24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply substitute the canister of Conrad for the canister of Lenkiewicz. One skilled in the art would recognize the predictable result of the ability for the surface cleaner to operate as intended with the option of operating the cleaner with less weight, making it more mobile in areas such as stairs that require a level of lifting on the users part.
Regarding claim 9, Conrad in view of Lenkiewicz disclose the method of claim 1, wherein operating the surface cleaner in the upright cleaning mode further includes, distributing fluid from the supply tank through a fluid line to a fluid distributor positioned on the base to distribute fluid to the cleaning surface (Conrad Paragraphs 663-666).
Regarding claim 10, Conrad in view of Lenkiewicz disclose the method of claim 9, wherein distributing fluid from the supply tank includes actuating an actuator to selectively dispense fluid from the supply tank through the fluid distributor (Conrad item 448, Paragraph 673-674).
Regarding claim 11, Conrad in view of Lenkiewicz disclose the method of claim 1, wherein operating the surface cleaner in the auxiliary cleaning mode includes carrying the canister assembly using a carrying handle of the canister assembly (secondary handle is depicted in Figure 4 of Conrad).
Regarding claim 12, Conrad in view of Lenkiewicz disclose the method of claim 11, wherein operating the surface cleaner in the auxiliary cleaning mode includes carrying the canister assembly uncoupled from the body using the carrying handle of the canister assembly while moving the nozzle across the cleaning surface using handle of the body and pivoting the body relative to the base (Figure 4 of Conrad).
Regarding claim 15, Conrad in view of Lenkiewicz disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising operating the surface cleaner in a lift-off cleaning mode with the hose uncoupled from the base, operating in the lift-off cleaning mode includes,
attaching a cleaning tool having a cleaning tool nozzle to the hose,
positioning the cleaning tool nozzle adjacent the cleaning surface,
moving the cleaning tool nozzle over the cleaning surface by moving the cleaning tool across the cleaning surface without using the handle of the body, and
operating the suction source to draw fluid and debris from the cleaning surface, through the cleaning tool nozzle, through the hose, and into the recovery tank (Conrad Paragraph 793 discusses the use of an additional hose and other tools for cleaning a surface; also Lenkiewicz Paragraph 40-41).
Regarding claim 16, Conrad in view of Lenkiewicz disclose the method of claim 15, wherein operating in the lift-off cleaning mode further includes, uncoupling the second end of the hose from the base and the nozzle and coupling the second end of the hose to the cleaning tool (Conrad Item 104a can be disconnected and connected to another tool as discussed in Paragraph 793).
Regarding claim 20, Conrad in view of Lenkiewicz disclose the method of claim 1, wherein operating in the upright cleaning mode includes rotating an agitator driven by an agitator motor, the base including the agitator and the agitator motor (Conrad Paragraph 722 Item 172).
Claims 7, 8, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrad (US 2019/0082925) in view of Lenkiewicz (US 2012/0222235) in view of Stephens (US 2005/0076467).
Regarding claim 7, Conrad in view of Lenkiewicz disclose the method of claim 1. Conrad fails to explicitly disclose further comprising collapsing the body into a collapsed position such that the lower portion and the upper portion are adjacent in the collapsed position.
Stephens teaches a surface cleaner wherein collapsing the body into a collapsed position such that the lower portion and the upper portion are adjacent in the collapsed position (Items 106, 108 and 110; Paragraph 18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Conrad to include the telescoping handle of Stephens. Such a modification would allow for the vacuum to take up less space when being stored.
Regarding claim 8, Conrad in view of Lenkiewicz in view of Stephens disclose the method of claim 7, wherein collapsing the body into the collapsed position includes telescoping the upper portion and the lower portion of the body (Stephens Paragraph 18).
Regarding claim 17, Conrad in view of Lenkiewicz disclose the method of claim 15. Conrad fails to explicitly disclose wherein operating the surface cleaner in the lift-off cleaning mode further includes, distributing fluid from the supply tank through a fluid line to a cleaning tool fluid distributor positioned on the cleaning tool to distribute fluid to the cleaning surface .
Stephens teaches a surface cleaner wherein operating the surface cleaner in the lift-off cleaning mode further includes, distributing fluid from the supply tank through a fluid line to a cleaning tool fluid distributor positioned on the cleaning tool to distribute fluid to the cleaning surface (Paragraph 13-14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Conrad to include the accessory tool as taught by Stephens. Different types of cleaning scenarios require different cleaning tools. The ability to have a liquid applicating accessory tool as taught by Stephens would increase the ability to clean tough stains.
Regarding claim 18, Conrad in view of Lenkiewicz in view of Stephens disclose the method of claim 17, wherein operating in the lift-off cleaning mode further includes disconnecting the fluid line from a fluid distributor of the base and connecting the fluid line to the cleaning tool fluid distributor (Conrad in Paragraphs 663-666 discusses the liquid system, in order for the liquid to go from the reservoir on the upright assembly in Figure 7 to 162, it would have to travel through the hose and the wand. If another tool is connected to the end of the wand as discusses in paragraph 793, the fluid line would be disconnected from the base and connected to the accessory tool as claimed).
Regarding claim 19, Conrad in view of Lenkiewicz disclose the method of claim 15. Conrad fails to explicitly disclose wherein operating in the lift-off mode includes rotating an agitator driven by an agitator motor, the cleaning tool including the agitator and the agitator motor.
Stephens teaches wherein operating in the lift-off mode includes rotating an agitator driven by an agitator motor, the cleaning tool including the agitator and the agitator motor (Paragraph 13-14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Conrad to include the accessory tool as taught by Stephens. Different types of cleaning scenarios require different cleaning tools. The ability to have a rotating brush would increase the tool’s ability to agitate a surface to pick up things such as dog hair with minimal user work.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrad (US 2019/0082925) in view of Lenkiewicz (US 2012/0222235) in view of Conrad US2018/0055301) herein referenced as Conrad B
Regarding claim 13 and 14, Conrad in view of Lenkiewicz disclose the method of claim 1. Although capable of, Conrad fails to explicitly disclose wherein operating in the auxiliary cleaning mode includes positioning the nozzle under a table using the handle of the body such that the cleaning surface is under the table and/or under the couch.
Conrad B teaches operating in the auxiliary cleaning mode includes positioning the nozzle under a table using the handle of the body such that the cleaning surface is under the table and/or under the couch (Paragraphs 7, 10, and 373). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the size of Conrad as taught by Conrad B. Such a modification is viewed as a change in size, which has been held to be of routine by one skilled in the art (see MPEP 2144.04). Conrad B further discusses that “Configuring a vacuum cleaner to help clean underneath such furniture, preferably using its primary surface cleaning head, may help users clean hard to access areas.” (Paragraph 7; Conrad B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6 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.
Conrad (and all other known art) fails to disclose uncoupling the nozzle from the base and then using the nozzle without using the handle to clean a surface, as claimed. Stephens is the closest known art which teaches uncoupling the nozzle from the base. When looking to Conrad, the Examiner believes a user would use the handle 386 to clean a surface thus would not meet the limitations of cleaning a surface without a handle. Pertaining to claim 15 the accessory tool can be used with an additional hose, thus the user does not need to necessarily use the handle.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights