Henderson, Gregg A.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 1, 201914524386 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 1, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 14/524,386 10/27/2014 Gregg A. Henderson 025818-9803-US02 5689 74442 7590 11/01/2019 Michael Best & Friedrich LLP (TTiFC) 100 East Wisconsin Avenue Suite 3300 Milwaukee, WI 53202 EXAMINER MULLER, BRYAN R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3723 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/01/2019 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): legal@ttifloorcare.com mkeipdocket@michaelbest.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE __________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD __________ Ex parte GREGG A. HENDERSON __________ Appeal 2019-003369 Application 14/524,386 Technology Center 3700 __________ Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges. HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20.2 Final Act. 1 (Office Action Summary). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). For the reasons explained below, we AFFIRM. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “Techtronic Floor Care Technology Limited.” Appeal Br. 2. 2 We refer to the Corrected Claims Appendix filed August 17, 2018 in response to the Notification of Non-Compliant Appeal Brief. Appeal 2019-003369 Application 14/524,386 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The disclosed subject matter “relates to surface cleaning devices and, more particularly, to steering assemblies for surface cleaning devices.” Spec. ¶ 2. Claims 1 and 13 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal and is reproduced below. 1. A surface cleaning device operable to clean a surface, the surface cleaning device comprising: a foot; a handle assembly pivotally coupled to the foot for movement between an upright position and an inclined position, the handle assembly having a longitudinal axis; a steering assembly coupled between the handle assembly and the foot, the steering assembly including a biasing member and defining an axis of rotation, the biasing member movable with the handle assembly relative to the foot as the handle assembly pivots between the upright position and the inclined position, the axis of rotation formed at an acute angle relative to the longitudinal axis of the handle assembly; and a fastener extending along the axis of rotation and positioned within a cavity defined between the handle assembly and the foot, the fastener rotatably coupling the handle assembly to the foot; wherein rotation of the handle assembly relative to the foot about the axis of rotation stores energy within the biasing member such that the biasing member exerts a corresponding force on the foot to encourage turning of the foot. REFERENCES Weber US 3,842,443 Oct. 22, 1974 Nagai et al. US 2002/0042969 A1 Apr. 18, 2002 Simonelli et al. US 2012/0060322 A1 Mar. 15, 2012 Appeal 2019-003369 Application 14/524,386 3 THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL Claim 9 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. Final Act. 2. Claims 1, 2, 4–6, 8–10, 11, 13–15, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Nagai. Final Act. 3. Claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Simonelli and Weber. Final Act. 5. ANALYSIS The rejection of claim 9 as being of improper dependent form The Examiner states, “[t]he limitation of claim 9 has been incorporated into amended claim 1 and therefore fails to provide any further structure to preceding claim 8 from which it depends.” Final Act. 2. In reply, Appellant respectfully notes that the Examiner correctly rejected claim 9 as failing to further limit the subject matter from which it depends, because claim 1 already recites that the fastener extends along the axis of rotation. Accordingly, Appellant does not appeal the rejection of claim 9 and will cancel claim 9 at the conclusion of this appeal. Appeal Br. 7. In view of the lack of any argument by Appellant on this point and, in fact, Appellant’s concurrence thereof, we summarily sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, 4th paragraph. Appeal 2019-003369 Application 14/524,386 4 The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–6, 8–10, 11, 13–15, 17, and 20 as being anticipated by Nagai Regarding independent claims 1 and 13, the Examiner finds that Nagai discloses a surface cleaning device having all the claimed limitations, including a handle assembly (“handle (1)”) and “biasing member (69).” Final Act. 3–4 (citing Nagai Figs. 1, 2, 5, 6, 39). Appellant initially misunderstands the Examiner’s rejection stating that “Nagai discloses a vacuum cleaner with a handle assembly made up of handle 1, coupling 2, extension pipe 6, and a second pipe 36.” Appeal Br. 8. However, the Examiner clarifies, “the examiner is considering the ‘handle assembly’ to be defined by handle portion (1) only.” Ans. 4. Claim 1 recites “the biasing member movable with the handle assembly relative to the foot as the handle assembly pivots between the upright position and the inclined position.” Emphasis added. Claim 13 recites “the biasing member including a first end secured to the handle assembly to inhibit movement of the handle assembly relative to the first end of the biasing member.” Emphasis added. With the Examiner correlating the recited “handle assembly” to Nagai’s “handle portion (1) only” (see supra), the Examiner does not make clear how Nagai discloses these limitations pertaining to the movement or inhibition of movement of “handle assembly” 1. This is because Nagai’s “handle assembly” 1 is positioned some distance from, and operates independently of, Nagai’s “biasing member (69).” See Nagai Figs. 13, 39. For example, Nagai teaches that handle 1 rotates about shaft 21 of coupling member 2 so that “handle 1 can be used as a crevice nozzle.” Nagai ¶ 84; see also Nagai ¶¶ 80, 82; Figs. 1– 6. In fact, Figure 5 of Nagai discloses locking plate 22 having a series of grooves (22a) therein so that handle 1 can be rotated and retained in place in Appeal 2019-003369 Application 14/524,386 5 certain positions along a 90º arc. See Nagai ¶ 90 (“the tip portion 20b is unlocked from the groove 22a, allowing rotation of the handle 1”). This pivoting of handle 1 occurs locally about shaft 21 of coupling member 2 (see supra) independent of any action or movement of distant biasing member 69. Thus, the Examiner does not explain how “the biasing member [is] moveable with the handle assembly . . . as the handle assembly pivots between the upright position and the inclined position” as recited in claim 1. Likewise, the Examiner does not explain how the biasing member “inhibit[s] movement of the handle assembly” as recited in claim 13. Accordingly, the Examiner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that Nagai anticipates either independent claim 1 or independent claim 13. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of either claim, or their dependent claims 2, 4–6, 8–10, 11, 14, 15, 17, and 20, as being anticipated by Nagai. The rejection of claims 1–20 as being obvious over Simonelli and Weber Appellant argues claims 1–20 together. See Appeal Br. 13–17. We select claim 1 for review, with claims 2–20 standing or falling therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Regarding claim 1, the Examiner finds that Simonelli discloses a surface cleaning device comprising a steering assembly having a biasing member, with one embodiment thereof depicting the biasing member as a “torsion rod.” Final Act. 5–6 (referencing Simonelli Fig. 15), see also Simonelli ¶ 46. However, the Examiner acknowledges that Simonelli “fails to disclose any specific structure for the steering assembly” of this selected torsion rod embodiment. Final Act. 6; see also Simonelli ¶ 46, Fig. 15. In other words, the Examiner acknowledges “the very vague disclosure of Appeal 2019-003369 Application 14/524,386 6 Simonelli regarding the connection using a torsion bar.” Final Act. 6; see also Ans. 7. Lacking such connection detail, the Examiner finds that “Weber discloses a known rotational connection between coaxial members, biased by a torsional resilient rod (40).” Final Act. 6. The Examiner finds that Weber’s torsion rod “provid[es] the same function taught by Simonelli.” Final Act. 6. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious “to apply a similar known connection as the connection using a torsion bar” in Simonelli’s device. Final Act. 6 (emphasis added); see also Ans. 7. Appellant contends the Examiner erred for suggest[ing] that to arrive at the inventions of claims 1 and 13, one of skill in the art, based on the vague disclosure and lack of guidance in Simonelli, would have tried all possible combinations of a biasing member between two rotatably coupled components, including the combination disclosed by Weber, despite the fact that Weber’s art is in the field of prosthetic limbs, which is wholly unrelated to surface cleaning devices. Appeal Br. 16; see also Reply Br. 5. Thus, Appellant argues that “the Examiner provides no rational articulation of why or how one of skill in the art would combine the teachings of the references.” Reply Br. 5. The Examiner explains, “the relevant art is the joint itself, wherein the vague disclosure of Simonelli for the torsion rod of Fig. 15, would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to look to other similar biasing joints for specific/additional structure.” Final Act. 9; see also Ans. 7. In other words, the Examiner’s motivation for combining Simonelli with the more-detailed teachings of Weber is because Simonelli does not disclose connection details of its torsion rod embodiment, and as such, an ordinary artisan would look to Weber for details concerning known connections involving a torsional rod. See Final Act. 6, Ans. 7. Appellant does not contest that Weber fails to Appeal 2019-003369 Application 14/524,386 7 disclose the claimed fastener, only that Simonelli’s vague disclosure renders the Examiner’s rejection improper. See Appeal Br. 15–16; Reply Br. 5. We are not in agreement with Appellant that the Examiner’s reason for combining the disclosures of Simonelli and Weber lacks a rational underpinning. The Examiner specifically states: The Simonelli reference explicitly discloses a torsion rod and the fact that the Simonelli is vague to the specific structure for the embodiment would only further motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to look to additional prior art for specific details to apply such a torsion rod. Ans. 7. Additionally, the Examiner points out that “[t]he Weber reference was found within the Joints and Connections area . . . and provid[es] a very similar function and result to the embodiment disclosed by Simonelli, which is far from [] [A]ppellant’s ‘obvious to try’ rationale to vary all parameters or try each of numerous possible choices.” Ans. 7; see also Appeal Br. 16; Reply Br. 5. The Examiner reasons that “although the Weber reference discloses a joint that is intended for use with a prosthetic limb, the focus of the [Weber] reference is to the specific pivotal torsion biased joint, wherein the pivotal biased joint is also the primary focus of the Simonelli reference and the current application.” Ans. 7. The Examiner further reasons “[t]hus, the Simonelli reference provides proper motivation to look to other prior art for specific details of the joint to be used in a surface cleaning device, all of which are found in the Weber reference having the fastener secured along the axis as set forth in the claims.” Ans. 7. We do not fault the Examiner’s rationale. Accordingly, and based on the record presented, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting Appeal 2019-003369 Application 14/524,386 8 claims 1–20 as being unpatentable over Simonelli and Weber. We sustain their rejection. CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed 9 112(d) or 112, 4th paragraph 9 1, 2, 4–6, 8–10, 11, 13–15, 17, 20 102 Nagai 1, 2, 4–6, 8–10, 11, 13–15, 17, 20 1–20 103 Simonelli, Weber 1–20 Overall Outcome3 1–20 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED 3 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1) states, “The affirmance of the rejection of a claim on any of the grounds specified constitutes a general affirmance of the decision of the examiner on that claim.” Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation