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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 2 – “hose” should be “a hose”.
Claim 1, line 3 – the phrase “with for suction area” should be “for a suction area”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1, line 3 – “housing” should be “the housing unit”.
Claim 1, line 4 – “rotary” should be “rotatably”.
Claim 1, line 5 – “length of hose” should be “a length of hose”.
Claim 1, line 10 – “elongated unit” should be “the elongated unit”.
Claim 1, line 11- “knee” should be “the knee”.
Claims 2-12 have similar grammatical errors that need to be corrected. For example, claim 3, line 3 “only facing suction area” should be “only facing the suction area” if it is referring back to the “suction area” already recited in line 3 of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the rotary connection" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the different flat surfaces" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 11, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 12, the phrase "including" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2007-236919.
In regard to claim 1, JP ‘919 discloses a nozzle for use with a vacuum cleaner, comprising:
a knee and housing unit (120) for attachment to hose;
an elongated unit (111, 112) for contact with suction area as a floor, whereas housing 120 and elongated unit 111, 112 are rotary joined 113, wherein:
the rotary connection 113 is perpendicular to the direction of length of hose,
the elongated unit is connected with and has airflow through two channels from both sides of housing unit (channels formed on either side of 140a, best seen in fig. 3),
the said-two channels meet and form a thin and flat space (interior void created within 111, 112) within elongated unit (111, 112) which is partially enclosed and has a certain air volume capacity, and
the elongated unit (111, 112) is made to narrow towards the end portion from knee and
housing unit (the unit is narrower in the vertical direction at the front where 112 is pointing in fig. 1 and wider in the vertical direction closer to 120).
In regard to claim 3, wherein the elongated unit has a flat floor-panel 112 with air
suction openings 20, 31, 32 only facing suction area.
In regard to claim 4, wherein air suction openings (20, 31, 32) on floor-panel 112 have different diameters and size based on distance from source of air suction.
In regard to claim 5, wherein the elongated unit has a selection of
removable and replaceable floor panels 112 (112 is removable from 111 and can be replaced with another floor panel 112).
In regard to claim 6, wherein openings in floor panel are of larger diameter or size
towards the end of the elongated unit than closer to knee and housing unit (see fig. 3 where hole 20 is wider than hole 31 and 32).
In regard to claim 7, wherein space and volume within elongated unit have curved forms between the different flat surfaces (the surface of 111 curves and changes in height from 111 to 113).
In regard to claim 10, the nozzle for use with a vacuum cleaner, wherein the elongated unit has a selection of removable and replaceable floor panels (112 is removable from 111 and can be replaced with another floor panel 112).
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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwartz 8,918,947 in view of McNamara 2012/0222230 in view of Hasse 4,715,088.
In regard to claim 1, Schwartz discloses a nozzle for use with a vacuum cleaner, comprising:
a knee and housing unit (3) for attachment to hose;
an elongated unit (2) for contact with suction area as a floor,
the elongated unit (2) is connected with and has airflow through two channels (8) from both sides of housing unit (see fig. 4),
the said-two channels meet and form a thin and flat space (interior space in 2 where 3 is located after the divider walls 7 end) within elongated unit (2) which is partially enclosed and has a certain air volume capacity, and
Schwartz discloses an elongated unit as described above, but does not disclose the unit as being rotatably connected to the knee and housing or narrowing towards and end portion.
McNamara teaches that it is common and well known in the art to provide similar types of elongated units either with (fig. 15) or without (see fig. 1) a rotary joint for connection to a vacuum hose. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to supply the elongated unit of Schwartz with a rotary joint because inasmuch as the references disclose these elements as art recognized equivalents, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one for the other. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 301, 213 USPQ 532, 536 (CCPA 1982).
Similarly, Haase teaches that it is common and well known in the art to provide an elongated unit with either a constant width shape similar to Schwartz (see fig. 1) or a tapered shape (see fig. 2). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the constant width shape of Schwartz tapered because inasmuch as the references disclose these elements as art recognized equivalents, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one for the other. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 301, 213 USPQ 532, 536 (CCPA 1982).
In regard to claim 2, wherein the elongated unit (2) has equal thickness along most of its
Length (see fig. 2 of Schwartz).
In regard to claim 3, wherein the elongated unit has a flat floor panel (2) with air
suction openings 4, 6 only facing suction area (any side that has an opening is considered to be a suction area).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 and 11-12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Williamson discloses a similar vacuum attachment that is common and well known in the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E. BOCHNA whose telephone number is (571)272-7078. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:30.
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, Matthew Troutman can be reached at (571) 270-3654. 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.
/DAVID BOCHNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Prosecution Insights