The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office Action on the merits.
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgement is made to the arguments received June 17, 2026. No claims were amended.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vorwerk DE 202017104648 U1 (hereafter Vorwerk) in view of Edmund Optics 10/27/2020 (hereafter Edmund Optics).
Regarding Claim 1, Vorwerk teaches:
1. A vacuum cleaner (canister vacuum shown in Figures 3 and 4a) with a hand-held part (handle 36), having a light source (light source 24) and a light guide (light guide 28 of handle 36), and at least one accessory (first accessory 2) which is able to be coupled to the hand-held part and has a further light guide (light guide 28 of first accessory 2 shown in attached Figure 3 below), wherein the light guide has a lens-shaped surface (labeled surface of light guide in attached Modified Figure 3 below, see discussion below) such that, during operation, it functions as a light output body when the hand-held part and the at least one accessory are uncoupled (shown in attached Modified Figure 3), and functions as a light coupling site for the further light guide when the hand-held part and the at least one accessory are coupled (shown in attached Figure 3).
Vorwerk discloses a light source and a light guide mounted inside a hand-held part of a canister vacuum cleaner. Vorwerk discloses a first accessory crevice tool that attaches to the handle 36. When coupled, the light guide of the handle transmits light though a light guide inside the crevice tool where it is dispersed through lens 30 onto the working surface. Vorwerk does not show the parts in a disassembled state, so the Examiner has modified Figure 3 as shown below to depict a disassembled state. Vorwerk discloses the use of optics as necessary to connect of the light guides for light transmission, however, he does not disclose specific details. The reference Edmunds Optics teaches the common knowledge use of a ball lens to transmit light into the light guide and the connection of two light guides using two ball lenses. The Examiner has extracted and labeled Figures 1 and 4 below from Edmund Optics to provide clarity. As taught by Edmunds Optics, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Vorwerk light guide to include a ball lens to receive light from the LED light source and include a ball lens on the handle side of the light guide coupled to a ball lens on the light guide of the first accessory crevice tool to efficiently transmit the light between the light source 24 and lens 30. With those obvious modification in place, the claimed light guide on the handle 36 would have a hemispherical convex lens surface.
PNG
media_image1.png
792
1309
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
806
1313
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
488
874
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
367
997
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Vorwerk teaches:
2. The vacuum cleaner according to claim 1, wherein the light guide (light guide 28 of handle 36) has an incoupling optic (labeled in attached Modified Figure 3 above) and an outcoupling optic (labeled in attached Modified Figure 3 above), which are each configured as lenses (as modified by Edmund Optics, both optics will obviously be ball lenses as previously presented).
Regarding Claim 3, Vorwerk teaches:
3. The vacuum cleaner according to claim 2, wherein the lenses (as modified by Edmund Optics, both optics will obviously be ball lenses as previously presented) are convex (ball lenses have a convex shape as claimed).
Regarding Claim 5, Vorwerk teaches:
5. The vacuum cleaner according to claim 4, wherein the light guide (light guide 28 of handle 36) has a diameter and the lens of the outcoupling optic (labeled in attached Modified Figure 3 above) has a radius that substantially corresponds to the diameter, wherein the diameter and the radius are each in the range of 2 to 6 mm (see discussion below).
Vorwerk discloses a light source and a light guide mounted inside a hand-held part of a canister vacuum cleaner. Vorwerk does not provide any diameter measurements for the lens and light guide. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention through routine physics and experimentation to determine a diameter of the light guide and lens capable of delivering sufficient light yet does not adversely increase the size of the crevice tool, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. That being said, 2-6mm would be an obvious range for a light pipe and lenses based on crevice tool devices known in the prior art.
Regarding Claim 6, Vorwerk teaches:
6. The vacuum cleaner according to claim 2, wherein the lens of the incoupling optic (labeled in attached Modified Figure 3 above) is parabolic or spherical and/or that the lens of the outcoupling optic (labeled in attached Modified Figure 3 above) is spherical (as modified by Edmund Optics, both optics will obviously be ball lenses as previously presented).
Regarding Claim 7, Vorwerk teaches:
7. The vacuum cleaner according to claim 2, wherein the further light guide (light guide 28 of first accessory 2 shown in attached Figure 3 above) has a further incoupling optic (labeled in attached Modified Figure 3 above) and a further outcoupling optic (labeled in attached Modified Figure 3 above), which are each designed as lenses (as modified by Edmund Optics, both optics will obviously be ball lenses as previously presented), wherein the lens (lens 30) of the further incoupling optic is designed as a negative form of the lens of the outcoupling optic (see discussion below) and the lens of the further outcoupling optic (as modified by Edmund Optics, outcoupling optics will obviously be a ball lenses that are the same as previously presented) is designed to be the same or substantially the same as the lens of the outcoupling optic (shown in attached Figure 4 above).
Vorwerk discloses a light source and a light guide mounted inside a hand-held part of a canister vacuum cleaner. Vorwerk discloses a light guide 28 that extends through first attachment 2 and emits light through light-distributing lens 30 that creates a diverging beam of light 16 shown in Figure 3. Vorwerk does not disclose that light-distributing lens 30 is concave (a negative form of the convex ball lens as claim), however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that common knowledge optical physics will require that light-distributing lens 30 is a concave lens that will take a small diameter light source from light guide 28 and expand it as shown in Figure 3 because it is old and well known use of concave lenses.
Regarding Claim 9, Vorwerk teaches:
9. The vacuum cleaner according to claim 1, wherein the vacuum cleaner (canister vacuum shown in Figures 3 and 4a) has a plurality of accessories which can be coupled to one another (see discussion below).
Vorwerk discloses substantially all the limitations of the claim(s) except for disclosing that the canister vacuum has a plurality of accessories that can be couple to the handle. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the Vorwerk device to be coupled to a floor cleaning head or a brush, in addition to the shown crevice tool since these are common knowledge canister vacuum tools that are as predicted by known prior art devices.
Regarding Claim 10, Vorwerk teaches:
10. The vacuum cleaner according to claim 1, wherein the light source (light source 24) configured as an LED (light source 24 in the form of an LED 14).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but it would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s arguments, filed June 17, 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s) of Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, and 10 under Vorwerk DE 202017104648 U1 in view of Edmund Optics 10/27/2020 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Therefore, the previous rejections of Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, and 10 stand.
A response to the Applicant’s arguments follows.
The Applicant argues: “CLAIM REJECTIONS UNDER 35 USC &103
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Vorwerk (DE 202017104648 U1) in view of Edmund Optics 10/27/2020 (hereafter Vorwerk) in view of Edmund Optics 10/27/2020 (hereafter Edmund Optics). The Applicant asserts that none of the references teach every element of the claims.
Claim 1 recites, among other things, a vacuum cleaner with a hand-held part and at an accessory which is able to be coupled to the hand-held part, having light guides with a lens-shaped surface. During operation, the lens-shaped surface functions as a light output body when the hand-held part and the at least one accessory are uncoupled, and functions as a light coupling site for the further light guide when the hand-held part and the at least one accessory are coupled.
Page 4 of the Office Action asserts it would have been obvious to "to modify the Vorwerk light guide to include a ball lens to receive light from the LED light source and include a ball lens on the handle side of the light guide coupled to a ball lens on the light guide of the first accessory crevice tool to efficiently transmit the light between the light source 24 and lens 30." This reasoning is respectfully traversed.
The purported reason or motivation identified is "to efficiently transmit the light between the light source 24 and the lens 30". However, this function of "efficient transmission" is already provided by Vorwerk, so there is no need to make the proposed modification. In particular, Vorwerk already discloses light transmission to accessory 2 via a light guide which is structurally aligned, and there is no mention in Vorwerk or elsewhere of any inefficiency. In Ex parte Tessler, PTAB 2014, Appeal 2012-006616; Appl. No. 12/700,643, the Board reasoned that since the primary reference already provided the function provided by the secondary reference, a person of skill in the art would not view the secondary reference's similar function as a reason for modification.
The modification would also increase the number of parts, complexity and cost of the device. These factors, in combination with the lack of any motivation to modify Vorwerk, leads the skilled person away from the invention and indicates the claims are patentable and non-obvious.
Furthermore, asserting or considering the 'inferiority' of the prior art's design is itself improper use of hindsight KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al. 127 S.Ct. 1727, 550 U.S. 398 (2007) ("Teleflex may have made a plausible argument that Asano is inefficient as compared to Engelgau's preferred embodiment, but to judge Asano against Engelgau would be to engage in the very hindsight bias Teleflex rightly urges must be avoided."). It thus appears that the rejection reconstructs Applicant's interface using the claim as a template, and hence the proposed modification/combination is based on hindsight reasoning. As explained by the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al. 127 S.Ct. 1727, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), a factfinder should be aware, of course, of the distortion caused by hindsight bias and must be cautious of arguments reliant upon ex post reasoning. Adding additional components to "efficiently transmit the light", when there is no indication of any inefficient light transfer, is clearly based on hindsight reasoning.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As previously presented, Vorwerk discloses a canister vacuum cleaner with a handheld part that includes an LED light source coupled to a light source. Vorwerk discloses an accessory that couples to the handheld part to provide a specific vacuuming tool. Vorwerk discloses that the accessory includes a further light guide and a lens shaped surface to disperse the light onto the working surface. Vorwerk discloses “The optics may further comprise a diffuser or a lens optic for changing the geometry of a light beam. Thus, depending on the design of the optics, illuminate a smaller or a wider area with more or less intensity.” Unfortunately, Vorwerk does not provide a detailed optical solution in his disclosure or specific optical details regarding the lens or optical connection between the light guide in the handheld part and the light guide in the accessory. Therefore, it would have been necessary to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ known prior art optical solutions to modify the Vorwerk design to efficiently create a device capable of providing the disclosed illumination. In this case, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Vorwerk device to employ an optical coupling solution that most efficiently transfers light between two fibers. The cited reference, Edmund Optics, teaches the use of two ball lenses to form the optical coupling that is a common knowledge commercial prior art solution for fibers structurally arranged in a fashion similar to the Vorwerk device. Therefore, the Vorwerk device is missing optical details that MUST be gleaned from prior art, such a Edmond Optics, in order to build the Vorwerk device and make it operate as disclosed.
Another undisclosed benefit of the obvious modification presented by the Examiner is that the handheld part, modified to include one of the two ball lenses, would serve to collimate the light and project it efficiently with minimal divergence allowing the handheld part to be operated without an accessory attachment with a high quality light beam.
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 extension fee 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 MARC CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30am-3:30pm.
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, BRIAN KELLER can be reached on (571) 272-8548. 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.
/MARC CARLSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights