DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
1. Amendments filed 7/27/2026 have been entered, wherein claims 1-18 and 22-23 are pending. Claims 4, 8 and 14-17 remain withdrawn as being directed towards a nonelected species. Accordingly, claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-13, 18 and 22-23 have been examined herein. The previous claim objections have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments. This action is Final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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 1-3, 5-7, 9 and 22-23 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 term “about” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically, it is not precisely clear what is required by the term “about 90°”. Therefore, it is not precisely clear at which angle the physical filter media is required to be removable. For purposes of examination, as best understood by the examiner, the language will be interpreted as requiring the filter media to be removable in a second direction that is at an angle to the first direction.
Claims 2-3, 5-7, 9 and 22 are rejected for depending upon a rejected base claim.
The term “about” in claim 23 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically, it is not precisely clear what is required by the term “about 90°”. Therefore, it is not precisely clear at which angle the physical filter media is required to be removable. For purposes of examination, as best understood by the examiner, the language will be interpreted as requiring the filter media to be removable in a second direction that is at an angle to the first direction.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 9 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Coburn (US PGPUB 20080250601).
Regarding claim 1, Coburn teaches a vacuum cleaner (fig. 1) comprising:
an air flow passage extending from a dirty air inlet (fig. 1, inlet 11) to a clean air outlet (fig. 1, outlet 430);
a momentum separator positioned in the air flow passage downstream from the dirty air inlet [0031], the momentum separator comprising an air treatment chamber (fig. 1, chamber 14) having a first end (see annotated fig. 1 below), an axially opposed second end (see annotated fig. 1 below), a longitudinal axis intersecting the first and second ends (see annotated fig. 1 below), an air inlet at the first end (The term “at” does not require any specific structural or spatial relationship. See annotated fig. 1 below, wherein air enters the chamber “at” the first end of the chamber) and an air outlet comprising a porous dirt separator (coarse filter assembly 20 is interpreted as the air outlet of the chamber, wherein the coarse filter assembly is the porous dirt separator (fig. 4a)), the porous dirt separator extending axially from the second end of the air treatment chamber towards the first end of the air treatment chamber (fig. 1; when assembled, the coarse filter assembly extends axially from the second end of the air treatment chamber towards the first end of the air treatment chamber); and,
PNG
media_image1.png
460
1080
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a pre-motor filter (fine filter assembly 30) comprising a physical filter media (fig. 1) provided on a downstream side of the porous dirt separator (fig. 1, [0026]) wherein the physical filter media is separable from the porous dirt separator after the air treatment chamber is opened (as seen in fig. 1) and wherein the air treatment chamber is opened in a first direction (the first direction is interpreted as a leftward direction with respect to the above fig. 1) and the physical filter media is removable in a second direction that is at an angle of about 90° to the first direction (the fine filter assembly 30 is removable from the coarse filter assembly 20 in a second direction that is at an angle of about 90 degrees to the first direction. Specifically, the coarse filter assembly can be detached and rotated such that the fine filter assembly is removed from the coarse filter assembly in a vertical direction. Therefore, Coburn teaches the physical filter media is capable of being removed in a second direction that is at an angle of about 90 degrees to the first direction. Additionally, this limitation is rejected under 35 USC 112(b) above, wherein the resulting interpretation is broader. See above 35 USC 112(b) rejection for more details).
Regarding claim 2, Coburn teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Coburn teaches wherein the porous dirt separator extends to the first end of the air treatment chamber (the first end of the air treatment chamber is interpreted such that the coarse filter assembly extends to the first end of the air treatment chamber, fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Coburn teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Coburn teaches wherein the porous dirt separator comprises a screen (fig. 4a).
Regarding claim 9, Coburn teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Coburn teaches wherein the physical filter media is positioned adjacent the downstream side of the porous dirt separator (when assembled, the fine filter assembly is positioned adjacent the downstream side of the coarse filter assembly (fig. 1, [0026])).
Regarding claim 22, Coburn teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Coburn teaches wherein in a plane transverse to the longitudinal axis, the porous dirt separator is U-shaped (fig. 1 of Coburn, starting with a horizontal plane extending along the longitudinal axis, wherein the horizontal plane is then longitudinally tilted such that it continues to extend through circular opening indicated by element 24 in fig. 1. The cross section of the porous dirt separator in such a plane is U-shaped, wherein the plane is “transverse” to the longitudinal axis. The examiner notes the term “transverse” is not as narrow as “perpendicular”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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 5-7, 10-13, 18 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coburn (US PGPUB 20080250601) in view of Campbell-Hill (US PGPUB 20190200824).
Regarding claims 5-7, Coburn teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Coburn does not explicitly teach
further comprising a wiper which is moveable relative to the porous dirt separator over an upstream surface of the porous dirt separator, wherein, when the hand vacuum cleaner is used to clean a surface, the wiper is located at the second end of the air treatment chamber, wherein the wiper moves over the upstream surface of the porous dirt separator when the air treatment chamber is opened.
However, Campbell-Hill teaches a dirt separator of a hand vacuum cleaner, wherein an outer wall 21 defines a separating chamber 20 (fig. 2a-2c), wherein a wiper is fixed to the outer wall and the wiper extends inwards from the outer wall and contacts the screen 23 (fig. 2a-2c, [0032]). Overall, Campbell-Hill teaches further comprising a wiper (fig. 2a-2c, wiper 25) which is moveable relative to the porous dirt separator (fig. 2a-2c, wiper 25 is moveable relative to the screen 23) over an upstream surface of the porous dirt separator (fig. 2aa-2c, [0032]), wherein, when the hand vacuum cleaner is used to clean a surface, the wiper is located at the second end of the air treatment chamber (fig. 2a), wherein the wiper moves over the upstream surface of the porous dirt separator when the air treatment chamber is opened (fig. 2a-2c, [0037]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Coburn to incorporate the teachings of Campbell-Hill to provide further comprising a wiper which is moveable relative to the porous dirt separator over an upstream surface of the porous dirt separator, wherein, when the hand vacuum cleaner is used to clean a surface, the wiper is located at the second end of the air treatment chamber, wherein the wiper moves over the upstream surface of the porous dirt separator when the air treatment chamber is opened.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate the wiper of Campbell-Hill onto the inner surface of the nose cone 10 of Coburn, wherein when the nose cone is removed, the incorporated wiper moves relative to the coarse filter assembly over an upstream surface of the coarse filter assembly, wherein when the hand vacuum is used to clean a surface, the incorporated wiper is located at the second end of the air treatment chamber of Coburn, wherein the wiper moves over the upstream surface of the coarse filter assembly when the air treatment chamber is opened (as taught by Campbell-Hill). Doing so would promote cleanliness of the coarse filter assembly of Coburn, as modified, and of the user during the empty process. Additionally, doing so would aid in removing stubborn debris from the coarse filter assembly.
Regarding claim 10, Coburn teaches a vacuum cleaner (fig. 1) comprising:
an air flow passage extending from a dirty air inlet (fig. 1, inlet 11) to a clean air outlet (fig. 1, outlet 430);
a momentum separator positioned in the air flow passage downstream from the dirty air inlet [0031], the momentum separator comprising an air treatment chamber (fig. 1, chamber 14) having a first end (see annotated fig. 1 below), an axially opposed second end (see annotated fig. 1 below), a longitudinal axis intersecting the first and second ends (see annotated fig. 1 below), an air inlet at the first end (The term “at” does not require any specific structural or spatial relationship. See annotated fig. 1 below, wherein air enters the chamber “at” the first end of the chamber) and an air outlet comprising a porous dirt separator (coarse filter assembly 20 is interpreted as the air outlet of the chamber, wherein the coarse filter assembly is the porous dirt separator (fig. 4a)), the porous dirt separator extending axially from the second end of the air treatment chamber towards the first end of the air treatment chamber (fig. 1; when assembled, the coarse filter assembly extends axially from the second end of the air treatment chamber towards the first end of the air treatment chamber), wherein in a plane transverse to the longitudinal axis, the porous dirt separator is U-shaped (fig. 1 of Coburn, starting with a horizontal plane extending along the longitudinal axis, wherein the horizontal plane is then longitudinally tilted such that it continues to extend through circular opening indicated by element 24 in fig. 1. The cross section of the porous dirt separator in such a plane is U-shaped, wherein the plane is “transverse” to the longitudinal axis. The examiner notes the term “transverse” is not as narrow as “perpendicular”);
PNG
media_image1.png
460
1080
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a pre-motor filter (fine filter assembly 30) comprising a physical filter media (fig. 1) provided on a downstream side of the porous dirt separator (fig. 1, [0026]) wherein the physical filter media is separable from the porous dirt separator after the air treatment chamber is opened (as seen in fig. 1).
Coburn does not explicitly teach
a wiper, wherein the wiper moves over an upstream surface of the porous dirt separator when the air treatment chamber is opened and wherein the wiper moves in a first direction when the air treatment chamber is opened and the physical filter media is removable in a second direction that is at an angle to the first direction.
However, Campbell-Hill teaches a dirt separator of a hand vacuum cleaner, wherein an outer wall 21 defines a separating chamber 20 (fig. 2a-2c), wherein a wiper is fixed to the outer wall and the wiper extends inwards from the outer wall and contacts the screen 23 (fig. 2a-2c, [0032]). Overall, Campbell-Hill teaches a wiper (fig. 2a-2c, wiper 25), wherein the wiper moves over an upstream surface of the porous dirt separator (fig. 2aa-2c, [0032]) when the air treatment chamber is opened (fig. 2a-2c, [0037]) and wherein the wiper moves in a first direction when the air treatment chamber is opened (fig. 2a-2c, [0037]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Coburn to incorporate the teachings of Campbell-Hill to provide a wiper, wherein the wiper moves over an upstream surface of the porous dirt separator when the air treatment chamber is opened and wherein the wiper moves in a first direction when the air treatment chamber is opened.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate the wiper of Campbell-Hill onto the inner surface of the nose cone 10 of Coburn, wherein when the nose cone is removed, the incorporated wiper moves relative to the coarse filter assembly over an upstream surface of the coarse filter assembly, wherein the wiper moves over the upstream surface of the coarse filter assembly when the air treatment chamber is opened (as taught by Campbell-Hill). Doing so would promote cleanliness of the coarse filter assembly of Coburn, as modified, and of the user during the empty process. Additionally, doing so would aid in removing stubborn debris from the coarse filter assembly.
In summary, Coburn, as modified, teaches
a wiper (as incorporated from Campbell-Hill), wherein the wiper moves over an upstream surface of the porous dirt separator when the air treatment chamber is opened (as incorporated from Campbell-Hill, see above combination for more details) and wherein the wiper moves in a first direction when the air treatment chamber is opened (leftward direction of Coburn fig. 1, see above combination for more details) and the physical filter media is removable in a second direction that is at an angle to the first direction (the fine filter assembly 30 is removable from the coarse filter assembly 20 in a second direction that is at an angle of about 90 degrees to the first direction. Specifically, the coarse filter assembly can be detached and rotated such that the fine filter assembly is removed from the coarse filter assembly in a vertical direction. Therefore, Coburn teaches the physical filter media is capable of being removed in a second direction that is at an angle of about 90 degrees to the first direction.).
Regarding claim 11, Coburn, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 10. Additionally, Coburn, as modified, teaches wherein the air treatment chamber comprises a moveable portion (nose cone 10 of Coburn fig. 1) and a stationary portion (motor housing 40 portion) and the moveable portion moves in the first direction when the air treatment chamber is opened (nose cone separates in leftward direction when the air treatment chamber is opened, fig. 1 of Coburn).
Regarding claim 12, Coburn, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 11. Additionally, Coburn, as modified, teaches wherein the porous dirt separator (fig. 1 of Coburn, coarse filter assembly 20) is provided on the stationary portion when the air treatment chamber is opened (the coarse filter assembly is provided on the motor housing via holes 22 and lugs 42 when the nose cone is opened).
Regarding claim 13, Coburn, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 12. Additionally, Coburn, as modified, teaches wherein the porous dirt separator comprises a screen (fig. 4a of Coburn).
Regarding claim 18, Coburn, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 10. Additionally, Coburn, as modified, teaches wherein the porous dirt separator comprises a screen which extends in more than one plane (fig. 1 and 4a of Coburn, wherein the coarse filter assembly 20 includes a screen which extends in more than one plane).
Regarding claim 23, Coburn, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 10. Additionally, Coburn, as modified, teaches wherein the angle is about 90° (the fine filter assembly 30 is removable from the coarse filter assembly 20 in a second direction that is at an angle of about 90 degrees to the first direction. Specifically, the coarse filter assembly can be detached and rotated such that the fine filter assembly is removed from the coarse filter assembly in a vertical direction. Therefore, Coburn teaches the physical filter media is capable of being removed in a second direction that is at an angle of about 90 degrees to the first direction. Additionally, this limitation is rejected under 35 USC 112(b) above, wherein the resulting interpretation is broader. See above 35 USC 112(b) rejection for more details).
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed 7/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Coburn fails to teach the filter media is removable in a second direction that is at an angle of about 90 degrees to the first direction (page 8 of Applicant’s remarks). The examiner respectfully disagrees. Coburn has been reinterpreted such that Coburn teaches the physical filter media is removable in a second direction that is at an angle of about 90° to the first direction (the fine filter assembly 30 is removable from the coarse filter assembly 20 in a second direction that is at an angle of about 90 degrees to the first direction. Specifically, the coarse filter assembly can be detached and rotated such that the fine filter assembly is removed from the coarse filter assembly in a vertical direction. Therefore, Coburn teaches the physical filter media is capable of being removed in a second direction that is at an angle of about 90 degrees to the first direction. Additionally, this limitation is rejected under 35 USC 112(b) above, wherein the resulting interpretation is broader. See above 35 USC 112(b) rejection for more details). See above rejection for more details.
Applicant argues Coburn fails to teach wherein, in a plane transverse to the longitudinal axis, the porous dirt separator is U-shaped. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Coburn teaches wherein in a plane transverse to the longitudinal axis, the porous dirt separator is U-shaped (fig. 1 of Coburn, starting with a horizontal plane extending along the longitudinal axis, wherein the horizontal plane is then longitudinally tilted such that it continues to extend through circular opening indicated by element 24 in fig. 1. The cross section of the porous dirt separator in such a plane is U-shaped, wherein the plane is “transverse” to the longitudinal axis. The examiner notes the term “transverse” is not as narrow as “perpendicular”). See above rejection for more details.
Claims 1 and 10 have been rejected above. The dependent claims have been rejected accordingly. See above rejection for more details. As no allowable subject matter has been determined, the withdrawn claims have not been evaluated for rejoinder. See above rejection for more details.
Conclusion
6. 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 MICHAEL A GUMP whose telephone number is (571)272-2172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9:00-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Posigian can be reached at (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 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.
/MICHAEL A GUMP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights