DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 7 recites “the brush recites a rotating brush roll driven by an air turbine” that is not described in the specifications. The specifications indicate the brush as a “turbo brush” ([0109]) but does not teach the brush to have a rotating brush roll or an air turbine.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 8-9, and 17-19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kiraly (US 3,030,650 A, previously presented) in view of Cankurtaran (2004/0006843).
Regarding Claim 1, Kiraly teaches a portable surface cleaner (Ref. 10, Fig. 1) having a front end (Fig. 1 annotated below), a rear end (Fig. 1 annotated below) and side walls (Fig. 1 annotated below) extending between the front and rear ends (Fig. 1), each of the front and rear ends has an end wall (fig. 1-2), wherein a longitudinal axis (See annotated Fig. 3 below) extends in a longitudinal direction (See annotated Fig. 3 below) centrally through the portable surface cleaner and intersects the end walls (Fig .1), the surface cleaner comprising an air flow path extending from a dirty fluid inlet (Ref. 19, fig. 4) to a clean air outlet (Ref. 22, top hole, fig. 7) with an air treatment chamber (See annotated Fig. 2 below) and a suction motor (Ref. 42, fig. 2, [Col. 1, Lines 54-55]) positioned in the air flow path (Fig. 2, [Col. 3, Lines 4-9]),
wherein the suction motor is spaced from the air treatment chamber in the longitudinal direction (Fig. 2),
wherein, in operation to clean a surface, a brush (Ref. 40, Fig. 7) and a hose (Ref. 38, Fig. 1-4) are fluidically connected to the dirty air inlet (Fig. 2&4), and
wherein a portion of the air treatment chamber (Fig. 2) forms a portion of an outer surface of the portable surface (Fig. 1&2) cleaner and the air treatment chamber is removable ([Col. 3, Lines 25-27]), and
wherein the portion of the air treatment chamber comprises a dirt collection region (Ref. 43, Fig. 2) and a line that is parallel to the longitudinal axis extends through the dirt collection region and the suction motor (Fig. 3 annotated below, same as longitudinal axis).
Kiraly fails to explicitly teach wherein the suction motor is positioned downstream of the air treatment chamber. Cankurtaran teaches a portable surface cleaner with a motor and air treatment chamber and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Cankurtaran further teaches an air treatment chamber (Ref. 8-9, Fig. 1) and a suction motor (Ref. 19, Fig. 1) is positioned downstream of the air treatment chamber (Fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the suction motor and air treatment chamber, as taught by Kiraly, to have the suction motor downstream of the air treatment chamber, as taught by Cankurtaran, since such a modification would yield the predictable result of suctioning and capturing debris.
PNG
media_image1.png
507
768
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
345
730
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
440
628
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 8, Kiraly as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Kiraly further teaches wherein the brush is removably connectable in fluid flow communication with the hose ([Col. 3, Lines 13-14]) and the surface cleaner further comprises an accessory tool holder (Ref. 48, Fig. 3) and the brush is removably mountable to the accessory tool holder ([Col. 2, Lines 25-27]).
Regarding Claim 9, Kiraly as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Kiraly further teaches a hose wrap (Ref. 41, Fig. 4, note examiner interprets a hose wrap as a device to hold a hose).
Regarding Claim 17, Kiraly teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Kiraly further teaches wherein the dirty air inlet (19) is provided in a front wall at the front end (Fig. 3) and the accessory tool holder (Ref. 48, Fig. 3) is provided at the rear end (Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 18, Kiraly as modified teaches the limitations of claim 17, as described above, and Kiraly further teaches wherein the portable surface cleaner is elongated in shape, has an upper end having a carry handle (Ref. 37, Fig. 1 shows that the carry handle when flipped upwards is in the upper half and upper end of the portable surface cleaner), a length (fig. 1 annotated below) in the longitudinal direction, a height (fig. 1 annotated below) between a lower end of the surface cleaner and the upper end, a width (fig. 1 annotated below) in a direction transverse to the length and the height (Fig. 1) and the length is a long dimension of the portable surface cleaner (Fig. 1, [Col. 11, Lines 47-50] describe a rectangular enclosure) and the carry handle has a hand grip potion that extends in the longitudinal direction (Fig. 2 shows the handle grip portion extending in a longitudinal direction).
PNG
media_image4.png
504
626
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 19, Kiraly as modified teaches the limitations of claim 18, as described above, and Kiraly further teaches wherein the length is longer than the width (fig. 1-3, [Col. 1, Lines 47-50] describe a rectangular enclosure).
Claims 2-6 and 10-16 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kiraly as modified as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Blase (4,910,828, previously presented).
Regarding Claim 2, Kiraly as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Kiraly further teaches wherein the portable surface cleaner has an openable lid (Ref. 11, Fig. 1, [Col. 3, Lines 25-27]) which, when opened, opens an upper end of the air treatment chamber (Fig. 1, [Col. 3, Lines 25-27]) and a carry handle (Ref. 37, Fig. 7) having a hand grip portion (Fig. 7 lower straight portion of handle) extending in the longitudinal direction (Fig. 2 shows the handle grip portion extending in a longitudinal direction), and in use, a user carries the portable surface cleaner using the carry handle ([Col. 2, lines 65-66]). Kiraly as modified fails to explicitly teach wherein the a carry handle is provided on the openable lid. Blasé teaches a vacuum cleaner with a hose, a nozzle, and a hose wrap and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Blase teaches wherein the a carry handle (Ref. 38, Fig. 1) is provided on the openable lid (Ref. 34, Fig. 2&4, [Col. 2, Lines 55-56 & Col. 7, Lines 5-8]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the location of the carry handle, as taught by Kiraly as modified, to be provided on the openable lid, as taught by Blasé, since such a modification would yield the predictable result of carrying and maneuvering the portable surface cleaner.
Regarding Claim 3, Kiraly as modified teaches the limitations of claim 2, as described above, and Kiraly teaches a pre-motor filter chamber (Ref. 20, Fig. 4), and a suction motor axis of rotation (See annotated Fig. 3 below) extends through the pre-motor filter chamber (Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 4, Kiraly as modified teaches the limitations of claim 3, as described above, and Kiraly teaches wherein the air treatment chamber has an upper end (See annotated Fig. 3 below) and an opposed lower end (See annotated Fig. 3 below), an air treatment chamber axis (See annotated Fig. 3 below) that extends transverse to the longitudinal axis and intersects the upper and lower ends of the air treatment chamber (Fig. 3), and an air treatment chamber air inlet (Ref. 22, top hole, Fig. 7) and an air treatment chamber air outlet (Ref. 22, bottom hole, Fig. 7) are provided at a common end of the air treatment chamber that is intersected by the longitudinal axis (Fig. 3 shows the inlet and outlet are at a common end and the common end is intersected by the longitudinal axis, if applicant intends for the inlet and outlets to be intersected by the longitudinal axis such a limitation is not required).
PNG
media_image5.png
421
648
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5, Kiraly as modified teaches the limitations of claim 3, as described above, and Kiraly teaches wherein the hose is removably connectable in fluid flow communication with the dirty air inlet ([col. 2, Lines 45-47] describes the hose can selectively have fluid flow communication with the dirty air inlet).
Regarding Claim 6, Kiraly as modified teaches the limitations of claim 5, as described above, and Kiraly teaches wherein the brush is removably connectable in fluid flow communication with the hose (Fig. 2-3, [Col. 3, Lines 13-14]).
Regarding Claim 10, Kiraly as modified teaches the limitations of claim 9, as described above, and Kiraly teaches a lower end of the portable surface cleaner (Fig. 2, bottom end). Kiraly fails to explicitly wherein the hose wrap is provided at a lower end of the portable surface cleaner. Blase teaches a vacuum cleaner with a hose, a nozzle, and a hose wrap and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Blase teaches wherein a hose wrap (Ref. 217, Fig. 3) is provided at a lower end of the portable surface cleaner (Ref. 36, fig. 3 bottom end). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the hose wrap, as taught by Kiraly as modified, to be at the lower end of the portable surface cleaner, as taught by Blase, by rearrangement of parts since such a modification would not modify the operation of the device (MPEP 2144.04 VI C) and since such a modification would allow for the hose to be held on the portable surface cleaner.
Regarding Claim 11, Kiraly as modified teaches the limitations of claim 10, as described above, and Kiraly teaches wherein the hose wrap comprises a recess (Fig. 4 shows a recess for the hose to sit in).
Regarding Claim 12, Kiraly as modified teaches the limitations of claim 10, as described above, and Kiraly teaches wherein the brush is removably connectable in fluid flow communication with the hose ([Col. 3, Lines 13-14]).
Regarding Claim 13, Kiraly as modified teaches the limitations of claim 12, as described above, and Kiraly teaches an accessory tool holder (Ref. 48, Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 14, Kiraly as modified teaches the limitations of claim 13, as described above, and Kiraly teaches wherein the dirty air inlet (19) is provided at a front wall (Ref. 18, Fig. 4) at the front end (Fig. 3) and the accessory tool holder (48) is provided at the rear end (Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 15, Kiraly as modified teaches the limitations of claim 13, as described above, and Kiraly teaches wherein the portable surface cleaner is elongated in shape, has an upper end having a carry handle (Ref. 37, Fig. 1 shows that the carry handle when flipped upwards is in the upper half and upper end of the portable surface cleaner), a length (fig. 1 annotated below) in the longitudinal direction, a height (fig. 1 annotated below) between a lower end of the surface cleaner and the upper end, a width (fig. 1 annotated below) in a direction transverse to the length and the height (Fig. 1) and the length is a long dimension of the portable surface cleaner (Fig. 1, [Col. 11, Lines 47-50] describe a rectangular enclosure) and the carry handle has a hand grip potion that extends in the longitudinal direction (Fig. 2 shows the handle grip portion extending in a longitudinal direction).
PNG
media_image6.png
504
626
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 16, Kiraly as modified teaches the limitations of claim 15, as described above, and Kiraly teaches wherein the length is longer than the width (Fig. 1, [Col. 1, Lines 47-50] describe a rectangular enclosure).
Claim 7 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kiraly as modified as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Miller (5,867,864).
Regarding Claim 7, Kiraly teaches the limitations of claim 5, as described above, and Kiraly as modified teaches a removable brush (Ref. 40, Fig. 3). Kiraly as modified fails to explicitly wherein the brush comprises a rotating brush roll (Ref. 4, Fig. 1) driven by an air turbine ([Col. 1, Lines 46-47]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the brush, as taught by Kiraly as modified, with a rotating brush roll (Ref. 4, Fig. 1) driven by an air turbine ([Col. 1, Lines 46-47]), as taught by Miller, to provide agitation to the working surface and to prevent danger of electric shock when using the nozzle ([Col. 1, Lines 35-37]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the specifications are acknowledged and examiner has withdrawn the specification objections.
Applicant’s amendments to claim 7 is acknowledged and has withdrawn the 35 USC 112(b) rejection. However, the amendments to the claims raise issues under 35 USC 112(a) as described above.
Applicant's arguments filed 29 January, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim 1, applicant has amended the claims thereby changing the scope of the claim and necessitating reinterpretation of the prior art and a new grounds of rejection. Examiner has applied Kiraly in view of Cankurtaran to the 35 USC 103 rejection above. Kiraly teaches an air treatment chamber (See annotated Fig. 2 above) and a suction motor (Ref. 42, fig. 2, [Col. 1, Lines 54-55]) positioned in the air flow path (Fig. 2, [Col. 3, Lines 4-9]),
wherein the suction motor is spaced from the air treatment chamber in the longitudinal direction (Fig. 2),
wherein, in operation to clean a surface, a brush (Ref. 40, Fig. 7) and a hose (Ref. 38, Fig. 1-4) are fluidically connected to the dirty air inlet (Fig. 2&4), and
wherein a portion of the air treatment chamber (Fig. 2) forms a portion of an outer surface of the portable surface (Fig. 1&2) cleaner and the air treatment chamber is removable ([Col. 3, Lines 25-27]), and
wherein the portion of the air treatment chamber comprises a dirt collection region (Ref. 43, Fig. 2) and a line that is parallel to the longitudinal axis extends through the dirt collection region and the suction motor (Fig. 3 annotated below, same as longitudinal axis). Cankurtaran further teaches an air treatment chamber (Ref. 8-9, Fig. 1) and a suction motor (Ref. 19, Fig. 1) is positioned downstream of the air treatment chamber (Fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the suction motor and air treatment chamber, as taught by Kiraly, to have the suction motor downstream of the air treatment chamber, as taught by Cankurtaran, since such a modification would yield the predictable result of suctioning and capturing debris.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 DANA L POON whose telephone number is (571)272-6164. The examiner can normally be reached on General: 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, David Posigian can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANA LEE POON/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723