DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claims 2, 21, 27, 31 and 32 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 14 January 2026.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that there would be no burden for search and examination, with the applicant citing the common structure between each of the independent claims. This is not found persuasive because, although the majority of species do include some common structure, each species also introduces alternative structure, orientations and mechanisms to plural components, which would require extensive search within the prior art to determine patentability of all disclosed inventions.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 30 October 2025 has/have been considered by the examiner. However, the examiner notes that the IDS documents include an extensive number of references, many/most of which have little to no relevance to the specifics of the claimed invention of the current application. Although the examiner has reviewed the applicant’s submitted references, the examiner does request that the applicant submit additional disclosure of any particularly relevant references to the current claimed invention for more focused review by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the cylindrical-shaped housing (claims 1, 23 and 26), the dirty air inlet, the debris separator, the motor, and the elongate handle positioned coaxially along the longitudinal axis (claims 1, 13 and 29), the batteries also being coaxial with the other claimed components (claim 6), the motor disposed proximate to the handle portion (claim 16) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. See rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 below for further discussion.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities: the word “to” should be added between the words “battery” and “provide” in the last line of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 4, 6, 7, 13, 14, 16, 19, 23, 24, 26 and 29 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.
The limitations in claims 1, 23 and 26 that the housing is cylindrical in shape is considered to be unclear, as it applies to the elected embodiment, because the shape shown in the drawings is not completely cylindrical. As best understood by the examiner to be supported by the elected embodiment, the limitation is considered to be intended to define that the housing has at least one portion that is cylindrical and/or is substantially cylindrical in shape, and will be treated as such for the sake of the current Office Action.
The limitations in claims 1, 6, 13 and 29 that the dirty air inlet, the debris separator, the motor, and the elongate handle (and the batteries for claim 6) are positioned coaxially along the longitudinal axis is considered to be unclear, as it applies to the elected embodiment, because the components are clearly shown to be offset axially from one another, based on the common definition of the term “coaxial” requiring the central axes to be aligned and colinear. To the contrary, at least the dirty air inlet, the handle and at least one of the batteries are clearly shown in the drawings for the elected embodiment to have central axes offset from one another, with at least one of the batteries also being completely offset in the longitudinal direction from the dirty air inlet. As best understood by the examiner to be supported by the elected embodiment, the term “coaxial” is considered to be intended to define that an axis extending along a longitudinal direction of the vacuum will pass through each of the components (for claims 1, 13 and 29) and/or the central axes of each of the claimed components are parallel to one another (for claims 1, 13 and 29, as well as claim 6, because the batteries do not read on the previous interpretation with the dirty air inlet), and will be treated as such for the sake of the current Office Action.
The limitations of claims 1, 13, 19, 23, that “the filter carriage positioning a filter” (claims 1, 13 and 19) and “the handle positions a battery” (claim 23), are considered to be unclear, because the wording suggests that the filter carriage and the handle places or locates the filter and battery, respectively. However the filter carriage is merely understood to provide a space to house the filter therein, and similarly, the handle is only disclosed to include a space therein to house the battery. As best understood by the examiner to be supported by the elected embodiment, the limitation is considered to be intended to define that the filter carriage houses a filter and the handle houses a battery, and will be treated as such for the sake of the current Office Action
The limitations in claims 4, 14 and 24 that the screen is positioned by and forms part of the removable air treatment assembly is considered to be unclear, because, similar to the rejection of claims 1, 13, 19 and 23 immediately above, the removable air treatment assembly does not place or locate the screen. Further, the term “positioned by” suggests a separate component that is close to or near another component, whereas “forms part of” suggests that connected components forming a whole (in this case the screen forming part of the air treatment assembly). Thus, the terms effectively contradict one another. As best understood by the examiner to be supported by the elected embodiment, the limitation is considered to be intended to define that the screen is positioned within and forms part of the air treatment assembly, and will be treated as such for the sake of the current Office Action.
The limitation of claim 7, that the dirty air inlet, the debris separator, the motor, the one or more batteries, and the elongate handle are arranged in order, is considered to be unclear, as it applies to the elected embodiment, because the batteries are positioned within the handle, with the majority of the batteries being further from the motor than the handle. As best understood by the examiner to be supported by the elected embodiment, the limitation is considered to be intended to define that the motor, the elongate handle and at least one of the one or more batteries are arranged in order, and will be treated as such for the sake of the current Office Action.
The limitations of claims 16 and 26, that the motor is disposed proximate the handle portion (claim 16) and the debris separator is arranged proximate the dirty air inlet and the removable cleaning head (claim 26), are considered to be unclear, as it applies to the elected embodiment, because Fig. 4 shows at least one battery positioned between the motor and the handle (relative to claim 16), and Fig. 8 shows the debris separator spaced from the dirty air inlet and the cleaning head (relative to claim 26), thus making the term “proximate” unclear, based on the common definitions “1. next; nearest; immediately before or after in order, place, occurrence, etc. or 2. close; very near.” 1, because the structure shown relative to both claims would read on definition 2, but not definition 1. As best understood by the examiner to be supported by the elected embodiment, the limitation is considered to be intended to define that the motor is close to (but not immediately adjacent) to the handle and the debris separator is arranged close to (but not immediately adjacent) the dirty air inlet and the removable cleaning head, respectively, and the elongate handle are arranged in order, and will be treated as such for the sake of the current Office Action.
The limitation of claim 19, that the elongate body comprises a wand, is considered to be unclear, as it applies to the elected embodiment, because there is no structure shown as part of the elongate body that is considered to correspond to the typical structure known as a wand in the art (most commonly an elongate tubular extension, usually releasably connected to a vacuum cleaner inlet, to increase length of the inlet and cleaner as a whole). While the specification does refer to the vacuum as a whole to form a wand (paragraph 63), there is no structure as part of the elongate body, that is disclosed as a wand. As best understood by the examiner to be supported by the elected embodiment, the limitation is considered to be intended to define that the cleaner as a whole defines a wand and/or the inlet conduit, extending from the dirty air inlet (120) to the opening (170) is considered to be a wand portion, and will be treated as such for the sake of the current Office Action.
The limitation of claim 23, that the mechanical actuator is actionable to cause the dust collection chamber to transition toward the open orientation, is considered to be unclear, as it applies to the elected embodiment, because the actuator is only disclosed to release the pivotable portion of the dust collection chamber, which will allow the dust collection chamber to open (under the force of gravity and/or a user imparted force). As best understood by the examiner to be supported by the elected embodiment, the limitation is considered to be intended to define that that the mechanical actuator is actionable to allow the dust collection chamber to transition toward the open orientation, and will be treated as such for the sake of the current Office Action.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The limitations of claim 5, defining respective orientation of the components, is equivalent to the limitation at the end of claim 1 that “the dirty air inlet, the debris separator, the motor, and the elongate handle positioned coaxially along the longitudinal axis and arranged in order between the dirty air inlet at the second end and the elongate handle at the first end of the housing”. Therefore, the claim fails to further define any structure to the previously claimed invention. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-20, 22-24, 26 and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beskow et al. (2008/0040883) in view of Milligan et al. (2005/0081321), Yau (2005/0132528), Matsumoto et al. (2001/0025395) and Campbell-Hill (2019/02000824; to be referred to hereinafter as CH)
NOTE: While CH has an earliest priority of 30 December 2017, which is later than the earliest priority of the current application, the limitations directed tot eh scraper are found to have earliest priority date of 12 January 2018 because the “scraper” is not disclosed in provisional applications 62/561851 or 62/585320. Thus, Ch qualifies as prior art to the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, Beskow discloses a vacuum configured for surface cleaning, the vacuum comprising: a housing extending from a first end to a second end along a longitudinal axis, the first end of the housing comprising an elongate handle (1104; Fig. 11A) defining a cavity housing one or more batteries (1120), the second end of the housing configured to couple to a removable cleaning head (110 of Figs. 1A-4E), the second end comprising a dirty air inlet (1108); a motor (1110) operably drawing air into the dirty air inlet, the motor disposed within the housing along the longitudinal axis of the housing; the housing further comprising a debris separator (1100), the debris separator comprising: a dust collection chamber (1114) configured to transition between an open orientation (Fig. 13C) to empty debris and a closed orientation (Fig. 11A) to inhibit debris from falling out of the dust collection chamber; and a screen (within filter cage 1044 of Figs. 13A-13C; paragraph 106) disposed between the motor and the dust collection chamber; the dirty air inlet, the debris separator, the motor, and the elongate handle positioned coaxially (in the manner of having a single axis pass through all components and/or having parallel longitudinal axes to one another, in the same manner as supported for the elected embodiment; see section b of rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 above) along the longitudinal axis and arranged in order between the dirty air inlet at the second end and the elongate handle at the first end of the housing.
While Beskow does disclose that the housing has portions that are similar to a cylindrical shape, Beskow does not specially disclose any cylindrical portion of the housing. However, Beskow does disclose that the debris separator of Figs. 13A-C may include a cyclonic separator, which is well known in the art. Matsumoto and CH both discloses similar cyclonic separators, both having cylindrical shaped housings defining the cyclonic separator chamber and dust collection chamber. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optionally form the dust collection chamber of Beskow to have a similar cylindrical shape, as is known in the art and taught by Matsumoto and CH, wherein a cylindrical shape will increase the internal volume of the chamber of Beskow, and allow for increased storage capacity. Further supporting the obviousness of a change to cylindrical shape, from the near-cylindrical shape of Beskow, MPEP 2144.04, section IV-B states that changes in shapes are obvious as a matter of choice absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.
Beskow further fails to disclose a removable filter carriage housing a filter. Yau disclose another vacuum, having similar size, shape and components as Beskow, and teaches that a second filter (30) may be provided between a screen (7; first filter) and the motor/fan unit (3/13) to catch any particles that pass through the first filter (paragraph 39), which is commonly known in the art as a pre-motor filter to protect the motor/fan unit from debris that may cause damage thereto. Therefore, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a similar second/pre-motor filter between the screen and motor/fan of Beskow, as taught by Yau, to prevent damage to the motor/fan, wherein such a filter would be provided within a removable filter carriage that houses the filter and would be configured to provide removal of the removable filter carriage relative to the longitudinal axis of the housing when the dust collection chamber is in the open orientation (as shown in Fig. 13C of Beskow), by allowing access to the filter, either positioned within an outlet area (1130) of the screen/first filter (1116 of Figs. 13A-C) and will position the screen between the (second) filter and the dust collection chamber.
Further, although Beskow fails to specifically discloses a mechanical actuator activatable to allow the dust collection chamber to transition to the open orientation, it is well known for some form of latching component to secure the dust collection chamber to the remainder of the housing when in the closed position, to prevent accidental disconnection of the dust collection chamber from the housing during use, and includes some form of actuator to allow a user to release the latching component when it is desired to remove the dust collection chamber for emptying. Milligan discloses another cleaner, also having similar size, shape and components as Beskow, and teaches that an actuator (38) will allow a user to disengage a latch, to remove the dust collection chamber as needed. Therefore, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a similar latching mechanism and mechanical actuator to the cleaner of Beskow to allow the chamber to be secured during use, while also being removable as needed for emptying.
Finally, Beskow fails to disclose a scraper for dislodging debris from the screen when the dust collection chamber is opened. However, Matsumoto and CH both disclose cyclonic separators, as discussed supra, and also teach that the dust collection chamber includes a scraper/brush (22 of Matsumoto, in Figs. 21-22; 25 of CH) at the end of the dust collection chamber that connects to the remainder of the housing, such that the scraper/brush will scrape and remove debris from cylindrical shaped screens (11b of Matsumoto; 23 of CH) as the dust collection chamber is transitioned to the open orientation, which will effectively refresh the screen to maintain optimal airflow therethrough for increased efficiency of debris collection. Therefore, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the screen portion of Beskow with a similar cylindrical shape, particularly when also providing the dirt collection chamber in a cylindrical shape, as discussed above, and to allow the dust collection chamber to be provided with a scraper/brush, as taught by Matsumoto and CH, to allow the scraper to dislodge debris from the screen as the dust collection chamber is transitioned to the open orientation and refresh the screen to maintain optimal airflow therethrough for increased efficiency of debris collection.
Regarding independent claim 13, the combination of Beskow, Yau, Milligan, Matsumoto and CH provides all of the claimed structure, with claim 13 differing from claim 1 by disclosing that the second end of the body configured to couple to one or more cleaning attachments (head 110, or alternatively attachments 1412 or 1414 of Figs. 14A-B of Beskow) and the mechanical actuator taught by Milligan including a release button (38).
Regarding independent claim 19, the combination of Beskow, Yau, Milligan, Matsumoto and CH provides all of the claimed structure, with claim 19 differing from claim 1 by disclosing the handle portion terminating at the first end of the elongate body, the handle portion being straight, the elongate body further comprising a wand (inlet conduit 1108 of Beskow; see section g of rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 above) terminating at the second end of the elongate body, the wand configured to couple to a cleaning head (110 of Beskow) and comprising a dirty air inlet.
Regarding independent claim 23, the combination of Beskow, Yau, Milligan, Matsumoto and CH provides all of the claimed structure, with claim 23 differing from claim 1 by disclosing a power actuator (1106 of Beskow) positioned on the cylindrical housing actionable to cause the battery provide power to the suction motor.
Regarding claims 3, 8 and 15, Beskow further discloses that the elongate handle axially extends along a single axis and a free end of the elongate handle terminates at the first end of the housing.
Regarding claims 4, 14 and 24, the combination of Beskow Yau, Milligan, Matsumoto and CH further teaches that screen is within and forms part of the filter carriage (claim 4) or air treatment assembly (claim 24), wherein removal of the filter carriage will coincide with removal of the screen when the filter is positioned within the outlet end (1130) of the screen, as discussed above as one of the two options for location of the filter.
Regarding claims 5 and 30, the structure of Beskow further provides that the elongate handle is positioned above the motor, the motor is positioned above the debris separator, and the debris separator is positioned above the dirty air inlet when the longitudinal axis of the housing is oriented perpendicular to a floor surface.
Regarding claim 6, Beskow further discloses that the one or more batteries are positioned coaxially (in the manner of having parallel longitudinal axes to one another, in the same manner as supported for the elected embodiment; see section b of rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 above) with the dirty air inlet, the debris separator, the motor, and the elongate handle along the longitudinal axis.
Regarding claim 7, Beskow further discloses that the dirty air inlet, the debris separator, the motor, the elongate handle and at least one of the one or more batteries are arranged in order between the dirty air inlet at the second end and the elongate handle at the first end of the housing (see section e of rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 above).
,
Regarding claim 9, Beskow further discloses that the motor is arranged adjacent the debris separator and the elongate handle along the longitudinal axis of the housing.
Regarding claims 11, 12, 18 and 28, the combination of Beskow, Yau, Milligan, Matsumoto and CH provides the scraper that can moves along the screen in a first direction as the dust collection chamber is transitioned to the open orientation and the scraper moves along the screen in a second direction opposite the first direction as the dust collection chamber is transitioned to the closed orientation.
Regarding claim 16, Beskow further discloses that the motor is disposed proximate (adjacent to and close to) the handle portion.
Regarding claim 17, Beskow further discloses that the debris separator and the motor are positioned coaxially within the body along an axis parallel to the longitudinal axis of the body (in the manner of having a single axis pass through all components and/or having parallel longitudinal axes to one another, in the same manner as supported for the elected embodiment; see section b of rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 above).
Regarding claim 20, Beskow further discloses that one or more batteries at least partially positioned in the handle portion.
Regarding claim 22, Beskow further discloses that the vacuum is cordless (due to batteries provided to power the vacuum).
Regarding claim 26, Beskow further discloses that the second end of the cylindrical housing is configured to couple to a removable cleaning head (110), and wherein the debris separator is arranged proximate (close to) the dirty air inlet and the removable cleaning head (see section f of rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 above).
Regarding claim 29, Beskow further discloses that the dirty air inlet, the debris separator, the suction motor, and the handle are positioned coaxially (in the manner of having a single axis pass through all components and/or having parallel longitudinal axes to one another, in the same manner as supported for the elected embodiment; see section b of rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Each of Beskow et al. (7,882,593), Jin et al. (2004/0187253), Hato (2007/0186522) and Conrad (2019/0320863) disclose vacuums having similar structure and function as the applicant’s claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN R MULLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4489. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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 at 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.
/BRYAN R MULLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723 2 February 2026
1 "Collins English Dictionary — Complete & Unabridged" 2012 Digital Edition © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2012