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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/3/2026 has been entered.
Priority
This Application claims priority to Application 16273058 as a Continuation-In-Part. The subject matter of claims 13 and 15 are not supported in the aforementioned Application and are, therefore, not afforded the previous filing date(s) of the priority chain.
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 13 and 15 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. C
Claim 13 recites “a stationary mesh”, however, examiner was unable to find any reference to the mesh being “stationary” in Applicant’s specification. Therefore, examiner considers the limitation of “a stationary mesh” to be new matter.
Claim 15 is rejected as being dependent on claim 13.
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 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strauser et al. (US6887290), hereinafter Strauser, in view of Brown et al. (US20050229777), hereinafter Brown.
Regarding claim 13, Strauser discloses a dust collection apparatus comprising: a filter (Fig. 2 element 70); a filter housing (Fig. 1 element 10 excluding elements 50, 52, and 53, 22:10-15) configured to house the filter (Fig. 1, 22:21-24); and an inlet (Fig. 1 element 50) coupled to the filter housing (Fig. 1, 24:60 – 25:5), wherein the inlet is configured to receive a flow of airborne dust drawn by a negative pressure (Fig. 6, 26:15-24), and wherein the inlet is aligned away from the filter and toward a curved inner wall (Fig. 1 element 30) of the filter housing to facilitate having the flow of airborne dust traverse the curved inner wall prior to entering the filter (Figs. 1 and 6, 24:60 – 25:5, where “The tangential orientation of the inlet 50 causes airflow entering the housing 10 through the inlet 50 to move along the interior of the sidewall 30, rather than in a direct path to the center of the system 1, and thereby causes a centrifugal airflow to form in the centrifugal separation chamber” corresponds to the inlet being aligned away from the filter and toward a curved inner wall to facilitate having the flow of airborne dust traverse the curved inner wall prior to entering the filter).
Strauser fails to disclose a mesh positioned perpendicular to the flow of airborne dust on an end of the inlet where the inlet transitions into the filter housing, wherein the stationary mesh is configured to reduce a dust velocity of the airborne dust prior to the airborne dust entering the filter housing to mitigate an impact of the airborne dust on the filter.
Brown is also concerned with filtering air flow and teaches a stationary mesh positioned perpendicular to the flow of airborne dust (Fig. 2B element 212, 0049-0050), wherein the stationary mesh is configured to reduce a dust velocity of the airborne dust prior to the airborne dust entering the filter housing to mitigate an impact of the airborne dust on the filter (0023-0025, where these paragraph discuss how “Upon impact by the filter, particulate matter within a filtered air-flow may…be…deflected from the air-flow in a manner that facilitates collection and disposal of the…deflected particles” where deflection from the airflow would reduce the velocity of that particle (i.e. dust) and the rotating mesh filter provides “reduced back-pressure” as compared to typical filters, and examiner finds that any reduction in back-pressure would result in a reduction of a dust velocity of the airborne dust prior to the airborne dust entering the filter housing which would then mitigate an impact of the airborne dust on any downstream filter). It 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 to modify the dust collection apparatus of Strauser to have a mesh filter positioned perpendicular to the flow of airborne dust which is capable of reducing a dust velocity of airborne dust, as taught by Brown, because Brown teaches that this type of filter is effective at removing particles from the air while reducing the rate at which the back-pressure increases due to increased mass from collected particles (0025).
Strauser, as modified, fails to disclose the mesh filter is positioned on an end of the inlet where the inlet transitions into the filter housing. However, it has been held that an “obvious to try” rationale when choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is a support for a conclusion of obviousness which is consistent with the proper "functional approach" to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham, if the following findings can be established: (1) a finding that at the time of the invention, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art, which may include a design need or market pressure to solve a problem; (2) a finding that there had been a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem; (3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success; and (4) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness. See MPEP § 2143(I)(E).
In the instant case, and as per (1), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that there is a need in the art to provide a mesh to improve filtration of air flow (based at least on the teachings of Brown; see at least paragraphs 0045-0046). As per (2), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that there is a finite number of identifiable, predictable potential solutions for the relative arrangement of the mesh filter, namely that the mesh filter must be positioned where all incoming airflow will pass through it before moving to the next stage to ensure proper filtration of the air flow. As per (3), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the particular positioning of the mesh filter could have been pursued with a reasonable expectation of success, since said finite number of potential arrangements would have not yielded unpredictable results, nor would have rendered the prior art inoperable for its intended purpose. That is, the position of the mesh would have still expectedly have resulted in a dust collection apparatus to collect dust. As per (4), based on the above analysis, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have taken the teachings of Strauser, as modified, and to have modified them by positioning the mesh on an end of the inlet where the inlet transitions into the filter housing, as a matter of trying a set of obvious, finite and predictable solutions, in order to obtain the best structural arrangement of components that best suits a filtration arrangement, without yielding unpredictable results.
Regarding claim 15, Strauser, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 13, as described above, and further discloses each of the filter and the filter housing are substantially cylindrical (Strauser, Figs. 1 and 2).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strauser et al. (US6887290), hereinafter Strauser, in view of How Do Vacu-Valve Dust Valves Work found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rxu9a1K6MrU with a PDF of screenshots provided, hereinafter referred to as Vacu-Valve.
Regarding claim 17, Strauser discloses a dust collection apparatus comprising: a filter (Fig. 2 element 70); a filter housing (Fig. 1 element 10 excluding elements 50, 52, and 53, 22:10-15) configured to house the filter (Fig. 1, 22:21-24), wherein the filter and the filter housing are substantially cylindrical (Figs. 1 and 2); and an inlet (Fig. 1 element 50) coupled to the filter housing (Fig. 1, 24:60 – 25:5), wherein the inlet is configured to receive a flow of airborne dust drawn by a negative pressure (Fig. 6, 26:15-24), and wherein the inlet is aligned away from the filter and toward a curved inner wall (Fig. 1 element 30) of the filter housing to facilitate having the flow of airborne dust traverse the curved inner wall prior to entering the filter (Figs. 1 and 6, 24:60 – 25:5, where “The tangential orientation of the inlet 50 causes airflow entering the housing 10 through the inlet 50 to move along the interior of the sidewall 30, rather than in a direct path to the center of the system 1, and thereby causes a centrifugal airflow to form in the centrifugal separation chamber” corresponds to the inlet being aligned away from the filter and toward a curved inner wall to facilitate having the flow of airborne dust traverse the curved inner wall prior to entering the filter).
Strauser fails to disclose a moveable barrier positioned below the filter housing, wherein the moveable barrier is configured to remain closed to isolate the filter during an operating mode, and wherein the moveable barrier is configured to open during an idle mode to function as a dump door for dust collected by the filter.
Vacu-Valve is also concerned with a dust collection apparatus and teaches a moveable barrier (page 1, where “sleeve” corresponds to a movable barrier) positioned below the filter housing (page 1, where the movable barrier is positioned below the rest of the dust collector and therefore would also be positioned below a filter housing of the dust collector), wherein the moveable barrier is configured to remain closed to isolate the filter during an operating mode (pages 1-2, where the movable barrier is capable of remaining closed to isolate the filter during an operating mode as it would depend on how long the operating mode is active, how much weight of material is collected, and how the springs are adjusted), and wherein the moveable barrier is configured to open during an idle mode to function as a dump door for dust collected by the filter (page 4, where “When the dust collection system is shut down, any residual head of material will discharge completely” corresponds to the moveable barrier is configured to open during an idle mode to function as a dump door for dust collected by the filter). It 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 to modify the dust collection apparatus of Strauser to include a moveable barrier positioned below the filter housing with the capability of performing the claimed functions, as taught by Vacu-Valve, because Vacu-Valve teaches that including a moveable barrier positioned below the filter housing with the capability of performing the claimed functions allows for “maintaining system pressure” during operation (page 3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 17 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection rely on a different combination of prior art as the combination of prior art challenged by Applicant in the Arguments/Remarks.
Applicant's arguments filed 3/3/2026 regarding claims 13 and 15 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Brown fails to teach “a stationary mesh” because the mesh taught by Brown moves at high speeds and specifically teaches away from the mesh being stationary. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner first finds that examiner was unable to find any reference to the mesh being “stationary” in Applicant’s specification, and therefore examiner has rejected claims 13 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as they contain new matter. Examiner, under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI), is interpreting the mesh being “stationary” to mean that the mesh as a whole does not move (i.e. the center of mass of the mesh does not move from its initial position). Examiner finds that under this interpretation, Brown does disclose a stationary mesh as the mesh taught by Brown rotates about the center of mass of the mesh filter, but the center of mass of the mesh filter does not move. Therefore, examiner finds Applicant’s argument to be unpersuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CALEB A HOLIZNA whose telephone number is (571)272-5659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-4:30.
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, Monica Carter can be reached on 571-272-4475. 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.
/C.A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3723 /MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights