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 Interpretation
1. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitations is: an electronic control unit configured to control operation of the vacuum cleaner, in line 2 of claim 1, according to the specification at page 13 lines 30-35, the electronic control unit (34) is more particularly configured to control the operation of the suction motor (14) according to the first operating mode when the first control button (45) is actuated by a user, and to control the operation of the suction motor 14 according to the second operation mode when the second control button 46 is actuated by a user.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim limitation “an electronic control unit (34) configured to control operation of the vacuum cleaner (2)” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. It is not clear what device the electronic control unit (34) is and whether there is processor associated with an algorithm to operate the device. There is no details in the written description that sufficiently describes the control unit (34). Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 103
2. 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.
Claims 1-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication (2021/0038041) to Pruiett in view of WIPO Publication (2020/082066) to Miller.
Regarding independent claim 1, Pruiett teaches an electronic control unit (100) configured to control operation of the vacuum cleaner (10), and a user interface (32) configured to allow a user to select at least one operating mode of the vacuum cleaner (10), in that the user interface (32) includes: a support part (36) which is stationary and which comprises a peripheral edge (See FIG. 2), a control part (40) supported by the support part (36) and configured to allow a user to select the at least one operating mode, the control part (40) having a perimeter inscribed inside and partly at a distance from the peripheral edge (outer perimeter) of the support part (36) (See paragraphs [0058]-[0061]). Except, Pruiett is silent regarding a peripheral seal extending around the peripheral edge of the support part. However, Miller teaches a vacuum (10) having a handle assembly (12) and a movable joint assembly (24) with a frame (18) (See paragraphs [0038]-[0040]). Miller teaches an interface (70) having a printed circuit board (80). Miller teaches that the interface (70) having the PCB (80) may be provided with a seal around the PCB in order to prevent liquid ingress (See paragraphs [0062]-[0072] of Miller). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Pruiett with Miller to include a seal around the support part (36) in order to prevent liquid ingress.
Regarding claim 2, Pruiett as modified with Miller teaches claim 2. In particular, Miller teaches that the peripheral seal (water seal) is elastically deformable. As mentioned above, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Pruiett with Miller to include a seal around the support part (36) in order to prevent liquid ingress.
Regarding claim 3, Pruiett as modified with Miller teaches claim 3. Miller teaches that the peripheral seal (water seal) is overmolded onto the peripheral edge (See FIG. 1 of Pruiett) of the support part (36). As mentioned above, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Pruiett with Miller to include a seal around the support part (36) in order to prevent liquid ingress.
Regarding claim 4, Pruiett as modified with Miller teaches the control part (40) includes at least one control button (34) which may configured to be actuated by a user, the electronic control unit (100) being configured to control the operation of the vacuum cleaner (10) according to a predetermined operating mode when the at least one control button (34) is actuated by a user (See paragraph [0061]).
Regarding claim 5, Pruiett as modified with Miller the at least one control button (34) is overmolded onto the support part (36) (See FIG. 1 of Pruiett).
Regarding claim 6, Pruiett as modified with Miller the at least one control button (34) is integral with the peripheral seal (water seal) and is overmolded onto the support part (36). As mentioned above, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Pruiett with Miller to include a seal around the support part (36) in order to prevent liquid ingress.
Regarding claim 7, Pruiett as modified with Miller includes the user interface (32) includes a connecting part (38) connecting the at least one control button (34) to the peripheral seal (water seal).
Regarding claim 8, Pruiett as modified with Miller the at least one control button (34) includes a stiffening insert (backing) (See FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Pruiett as modified with Miller includes further including a grip handle (26) with the user interface (32) being is disposed on the grip handle (26).
Regarding claim 10, Pruiett as modified with Miller includes the user interface (32) includes an external surface which is flush with an external surface of the grip handle (26) (See FIG. 1 of Pruiett).
Regarding claim 11, Pruiett as modified with Miller teaches claim 11. Miller teaches a printed circuit board (80) which is disposed at least partly below the user interface (32), the printed circuit board (80) being equipped with at least one electrical contact, such as a microswitch (See paragraph [0074]) with the at least one control button (34) being is configured to activate the at least one electrical contact when the at least one control button (34) is actuated by a user.
Regarding claim 12, Pruiett as modified with Miller teaches that the support part (36) is at least partly transparent to light radiation (based display).
Regarding claim 13, Pruiett as modified with Miller teaches at least one operating indicator (infrared transmitter) configured to visually indicate to a user at least one operating parameter of the vacuum cleaner (10), the at least one operating indicator being configured to be visible through the support part (36).
Regarding claim 15, Pruiett as modified with Miller a rechargeable battery (88) configured to electrically power the vacuum cleaner (10) (See paragraph [0072] of Pruiett).
Conclusion
3. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL D. JENNINGS whose telephone number is (571)270-1536. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30pm. 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, Monica S. 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.
MICHAEL DEANGILO. JENNINGS
Examiner
Art Unit 3723
/MICHAEL D JENNINGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights