DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 01 November 2024.
Claims 1-19 are currently pending.
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 statement(s) (IDS) submitted was/were considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
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.
Examiner note: no 112(f) invocations have been identified by the Office.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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(s) 1-2, 11-12, 14-16, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kong et al (CN 208144963) Machine Translation, hereafter referred to as Kong.
Regarding Claim 1, Kong discloses the following:
A vacuum cleaning system comprising
a vacuum cleaner (FIG. 1) having a vacuum motor (see [0040]), a dirt bin (20), a primary separation system (20 in combination with 51), a membrane filter (51), and an air valve (60; see [0042]) arrangement configured to control air flow through at least the membrane filter (51);
wherein the vacuum cleaner (FIG. 1) is configured to be operable in a surface cleaning mode (see for example [0006]) of operation and a self-cleaning (see [0042]) mode of operation;
wherein, in the surface cleaning mode (see for example [0006]) of operation, the vacuum cleaner (FIG. 1) is configured such that the vacuum motor (see [0040]) draws dirty air from a dirty-air inlet through the dirt bin (20), the primary separation system (20 in combination with 51) and the membrane filter (51) in a first airflow direction, and wherein,
in the self-cleaning (see [0042]) mode of operation, the vacuum cleaner (FIG. 1) is configured to permit air to flow from the air valve (60; see [0042]) arrangement through the membrane filter (51) in a second airflow direction to clean dirt from the membrane filter (51).
Regarding Claim 2, Kong discloses the following:
The vacuum cleaning system of Claim 1,
wherein the air valve (60; see [0042]) arrangement is further configured to cause air to flow across a surface of the membrane filter (51) during the self-cleaning (see [0042]) mode.
Regarding Claim 11, Kong discloses the following:
The vacuum cleaning system of Claim 1,
wherein the membrane filter (51) is at least a pre-motor (see [0040]) filter, such that it is positioned upstream of the vacuum motor (see [0040]) when considered in the direction of airflow in the surface cleaning mode (see for example [0006]) of operation.
Regarding Claim 12, Kong discloses the following:
The vacuum cleaning system of Claim 1,
wherein the membrane filter (51) is at least a post-motor (see [0040]) filter, such that it is positioned downstream of the vacuum motor (see [0040]) when considered in the second airflow direction in the surface cleaning mode (see for example [0006]) of operation.
Regarding Claim 14, Kong discloses the following:
The vacuum cleaning system of Claim 13,
wherein one a negative pressure level has been generated, the air valve (60; see [0042]) arrangement is operated to cause a pulse of air to flow into the dirt bin (20) of the vacuum cleaner (FIG. 1) thereby to eject dirt from the dirt bin (20) through the bin (20) opening and into the dirt storage chamber.
Regarding Claim 15, Kong discloses the following:
The vacuum cleaning system of Claim 13,
wherein the vacuum cleaner (FIG. 1) is configured such that the pulse of air admitted into the dirt bin (20) during the self-cleaning (see [0042]) mode flows firstly through the membrane filter (51).
Regarding Claim 16, Kong discloses the following:
The vacuum cleaning system of Claim 15,
wherein the primary separation system (20 in combination with 51) includes at least one of a surface filter (51), a depth filter (52) and a cyclonic separator.
Regarding Claim 18, Kong discloses the following:
The system of Claim1,
wherein the air valve (60; see [0042]) arrangement is configured to be operated by differential pressure between the dirt bin (20) and ambient environment.
Regarding Claim 19, Kong discloses the following:
The system of Claim1,
wherein the air valve (60; see [0042]) arrangement is configured to be operated repeatedly during sustained operation of the suction generator, thereby permitting a plurality of sequential air pulses to flow through the dirt bin (20).
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 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Sato et al (US 20200315419), hereafter referred to as Sato.
Regarding Claim 3 Kong discloses the following:
The system of Claim 1,
Kong does not explicitly disclose the following:
wherein the membrane filter is selected from: an ePTFE membrane, PP membrane, PU membrane, Polyamide membrane, and a PVDF membrane.
However Sato teaches the following:
it is well known in the art to make filters for vacuum cleaners with a film of ePTFE on the upstream surface to easily remove the attached dust (see [0111]).
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 filter of Kong, wherein the filter comprises a film of ePTFE on the upstream side of the filter, as taught by Sato, to easily remove attached dust (see Sato [0111]).
Regarding Claims 4-5 Kong as modified by Sato discloses the following:
The system of Claim 3,
Kong does not explicitly disclose the following:
wherein the filter element has a filter efficiency of at least 50% at a particle size of 0.3 micrometres (claim 4); wherein the filter element has an average fibril diameter of less than 100nm (claim 5);
However the Examiner notes the following:
Kong as modified by Sato discloses a self-cleaning vacuum having a filter. In other words, Kong as modified by Sato discloses the same structure as the Applicant, except the relative dimensions claimed. The Instant Application has not disclosed the limitation(s) of: wherein the filter element has a filter efficiency of at least 50% at a particle size of 0.3 micrometres (claim 4); wherein the filter element has an average fibril diameter of less than 100nm (claim 5); provides any criticality. Note that the mere existence of these relative dimensions themselves in the claim cannot impart criticality as any filter could be described in such a way. Therefore without explicit support for the relative dimensions of the claim(s) providing a critical result it appears Kong as modified by Sato would perform equally well with the relative values as claimed by Applicant. Since the courts have held that, “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device,” 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 filter, as disclosed by Kong as modified by Sato, by utilizing the specific value(s) (relative dimensions) as described above, with the reasonable expectation of successfully providing a specific filter for the vacuum. (see MPEP 2144.04, IV, A).
Claim 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong, as applied to claim 1, in further view of the MPEP.
Regarding Claim 18, Kong discloses the following:
The system of Claim1,
Kong does not explicitly disclose the following:
wherein the air valve arrangement has a total area that is configured to be not less than 0.5 times the cross sectional area of the dirt bin.
However the Examiner notes the following:
Kong discloses a self-cleaning vacuum having an air valve. In other words, Kong discloses the same structure as the Applicant, except the relative dimensions claimed. The Instant Application has not disclosed the limitation(s) of: wherein the air valve arrangement has a total area that is configured to be not less than 0.5 times the cross sectional area of the dirt bin; provides any criticality. Note that the mere existence of these relative dimensions themselves in the claim cannot impart criticality as any filter could be described in such a way. Therefore without explicit support for the relative dimensions of the claim(s) providing a critical result it appears Kong would perform equally well with the relative values as claimed by Applicant. Since the courts have held that, “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device,” 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 filter, as disclosed by Kong, by utilizing the specific value(s) (relative dimensions) as described above, with the reasonable expectation of successfully providing a specific ratio of valve area to bin area. (see MPEP 2144.04, IV, A).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-10 and 13 would appear to be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
In combination with the other structures required by the independent claims, the inclusion of:
Regarding Claim 6:
wherein the membrane filter is movably mounted within the vacuum cleaner, wherein movable mounting of the membrane filter is configured to assists in dislodging dirt from the membrane filter;
Regarding Claims 7-10:
Claims 7-10 are dependent upon claim 6;
Regarding Claim 13:
further comprising a docking station, wherein the docking station comprises a dirt storage chamber and an interface configured to mate with a dirt bin of the vacuum cleaner such that dirt expelled from the dirt bin through a bin opening is ejected into the dirt storage chamber of the docking station,
wherein the vacuum cleaner is configured to evacuate air from the dirt storage chamber when docked with the docking station, wherein, in the self-cleaning mode, the vacuum cleaning system is configured to:
operate the vacuum motor to generate a partial vacuum in the dirt storage chamber, and
once a negative pressure level has been generated, operate the air valve arrangement to cause a pulse of air to flow from the air valve arrangement through the membrane filter in the second airflow direction;
was not found or fairly taught by prior art and differentiated the claims from the closest prior art to Kong et al (CN 208144963) Machine Translation and Sato et al (US 20200315419).
The Examiner notes Kong is considered the closest prior art and does not teach the limitations as described above. Further, it appears there would be no reason to modify the prior art without the benefit of Applicant's disclosure and impermissible hindsight.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
See form No. 892 for other references pertinent to the application that may not have been cited within the Office Action.
For references which show similar vacuum cleaner arrangements see Page 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN C DELRUE whose telephone number is (313)446-6567. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday; 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM (Eastern).
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, Nathaniel E. Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/BRIAN CHRISTOPHER DELRUE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights