DETAILED ACTION
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 again requests that the applicant submit additional disclosure that the applicant finds to be 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 filter carriage being removable from the housing in a direction at an angle to the longitudinal axis (claim 34) and the top surfaces of the handle, motor section, and dirty air inlet being coplanar (claim 35) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claims (see further discussion under 35 U.S.C. 112 below). 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 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: the word “at least one of the” should be added between the words “the” and “one” in line 2 of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 34 and 35 are 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. There is no written disclosure supporting the limitations that the filter carriage is removable from the housing in a direction at an angle to the longitudinal axis or that the top surfaces of the handle, motor section, and dirty air inlet being coplanar, particularly for the elected embodiment. The examiner does not find any of the drawings that provide structure that would enable the filter carriage to be removed at an angle to the longitudinal axis. As best understood by the examiner, the limitation is considered to possibly be intended to refer to the angled motion of the filter carriage after removal along the longitudinal axis, as shown by the linear arrow in Fig. 7, and will be treated as such for the sake of the current Office Action. Similarly, the drawings for the elected embodiment (Figs. 1-7) appear to actually show the top surface of the dirty air inlet as being slightly misaligned from the top surfaces of the handle and motor section. The only drawings that appear to support the limitation of claim 35 are directed to the non-elected the embodiment of Figs. 37-45. However, as discussed below, the limitation is made obvious by the Petzold reference, so the claim is not withdrawn at this time for reading on the non-elected embodiment.
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 6, 15, 29 and 34 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 claim 6 that at least one of the batteries, are positioned coaxially with the debris separator and the motor 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, all of the batteries are clearly shown in the drawings for the elected embodiment to have central axes offset from the motor and debris separator. As best understood by the examiner to be supported by the elected embodiment, the term “coaxial” is considered to be intended to define that the central axes of each of the claimed components are parallel to one, and will be treated as such for the sake of the current Office Action.
Regarding claim 15, the limitation that the handle extends along a single axis is unclear, because any 3-dimensional object would be considered to extend along multiple axes (effectively an unlimited number of axes passing through any single point). As best understood by the examiner, the limitation is considered to be intended to define that the handle portion extends along a longitudinal axis, and will be treated as such for the sake of the current Office Action.
Regarding claim 29, the limitation that the dirty air inlet is positioned along the longitudinal axis of the housing is unclear for the elected embodiment because the dirty air inlet is clearly offset from the longitudinal axis. As best understood by the examiner, the limitation is considered to be intended to define that the dirty air inlet is positioned parallel to the longitudinal axis of the housing, and will be treated as such for the sake of the current Office Action.
Regarding claim 34, it is unclear how the filter carriage is considered to be removable from the housing in a direction at an angle to the longitudinal axis of the housing. As noted above, there is no written disclosure or structure in the drawings to support the claim limitation.
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, 23-24, 28-30 and 34 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), Matsumoto et al. (2001/0025395), Campbell-Hill (2019/02000824; to be referred to hereinafter as CH) and optionally in view of Petzold (10,447,048).
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 removable filter cage (1044) comprising a filter (1050) and 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, 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 arranged 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.
Regarding the new limitation that the dirty air inlet is positioned proximate a top surface, the dirty air inlet is positioned in a location that can be positioned proximate the top surface of the housing, depending on the overall orientation of the cleaner, due to a lack of any other limitations defining any other portions of the cleaner as top, bottom, or otherwise defining a set orientation. Alternatively/additionally, Petzold discloses another known handheld cleaner in the art, having very similar structure to the cleaner of Beskow, but merely having a different shape for the housing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optionally modify the shape of the housing of Beskow to be similar to the housing disclosed by Petzold, as a known alternative in the art and a matter of design choice, wherein Petzold discloses a dirty air inlet (6) that is positioned proximate a tope surface of the housing as viewed in Fig. 1 and in the same manner as the applicant’s disclosed cleaner.
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. Alternatively/additionally, when providing the cleaner of Beskow with the housing shape taught by Petzold, the housing will also include at least partially cylindrical-shaped housing along the dust container (2) and housing portion having the motor therein.
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, 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, 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-like apparatus (in configuration taught by Beskow or the alternative housing shape of Petzold) terminating at the second end of the elongate body, the wand-like apparatus configured to couple to a cleaning head (110 of Beskow) and comprising a dirty air inlet.
Regarding independent claim 23, the combination of Beskow, 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 the amended limitations of the claim, when any portion of the housing is considered to be at least partially cylindrical, all of the respective components will be within or on the at least partially cylindrical housing (the amendments do not require that the respective parts are within or on the partially cylindrical portion) with each of the suction motor and debris separator positioned within the at least partially cylindrical housing and the power actuator positioned on the at least partially cylindrical housing.
Regarding claims 3, 8 and 15, Beskow further discloses that the elongate handle axially extends along at least 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, 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 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 debris separator, the motor, and the elongate handle along the longitudinal axis.
Regarding claim 7, Beskow and Petzold both further discloses that the dirty air inlet, the debris separator, the motor, at least one of the one or more batteries and at least a proximal end of the elongate handle are arranged in order between the dirty air inlet at the second end and the elongate handle at the first end of the housing.
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, 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 and Petzold both 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 29, Beskow further discloses that the dirty air inlet, the debris separator, the suction motor, and the handle are positioned along the longitudinal axis of the housing (except for the dirty air inlet being parallel thereto, as discussed above under 35 U.S.C. 112).
Regarding claim 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.
Claims 33 and 35 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), Matsumoto et al. (2001/0025395), Campbell-Hill (2019/02000824; to be referred to hereinafter as CH) and in view of Petzold (10,447,048).
Regarding claim 33, when Beskow is provided with the housing shape taught by Petzold, the housing will have a wall forming an upper boundary of the dirty air inlet that also forms a portion of an upper boundary of the housing.
Regarding claim 35, when Beskow is provided with the housing shape taught by Petzold, a top surface of the housing, a top surface of the handle, a top surface of a motor section containing the motor, and a top surface of the dirty air inlet are coplanar.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 10 April 2026, with respect to the objections to the drawings and claims, and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive due to the amendments to the claims. Specific to claim 16, the examiner is taking the applicant’s arguments to interpret the term “proximate” as defined as “close to, or near”, as opposed to alternative known definitions requiring “nearest; immediately before or after in order or place”. The previously applied objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been withdrawn.
However, additional objections to the drawings and/or claims and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been applied for amended claim 7, original claim 15 and new claims 34 and 35, as discussed above.
The remainder of applicant's arguments filed 10 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As discussed above, the previously applied prior art rejections are still applicable to the amended claims. Additionally, the Petzold reference is also optionally applied to the previously rejected claims as an alternative rejection and applicable to the new claims 33 and 35, also discussed above.
The examiner does not agree with the argument that the limitations of claim 6 are supported, because there is no support in the written description and none of the batteries are clearly shown to be coaxial with the motor and debris separator (although they do appear to be close, the battery closest to the motor does appear to have an axis offset from the motor axis, and also appears to be coaxial with the battery positioned rearward therefrom, such that none of the batteries are considered to be coaxial with the claimed components.
The applicant argues that the cylindrical dust collection chamber taught by Matsumoto and CH does not read on the limitation that the “at least partially cylindrical-shaped housing extending from a first end to a second end along a longitudinal axis”, suggesting that the dust container is not part of the housing. However, the limitation effectively defines the housing as extending from the handle to the inlet, which encompasses the entire structure of the disclosed invention and also only requires the cylindrical housing to be partially cylindrical, which only requires some/any part of the overall housing to be partially cylindrical. The modified shape of the entire housing of Beskow, as taught by Matsumoto and CH to include a cylindrical dust container would read on at least part of the housing being at least partially cylindrical, because the dust container can be considered to be part of the housing (with no specific structure defining the housing in the claims in any way that would exclude the dust container from the housing). Further, both of the Matsumoto and CH cleaners also include at least a portion of the housing with a corresponding cylindrical shape to receive the dust container, which would also read on part of the housing (other than the dust container) being at least partially cylindrical. Finally, the Petzold reference is also optionally applied to the rejection, which also includes a partially cylindrical housing.
Additionally, the examiner has determined that the Beskow reference does teach a removable filter carriage comprising a filter therein, as discussed above, that previously relied upon Yau to teach. Thus, the Yau reference is no longer applied.
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.
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 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 23 April 2026
Prosecution Insights