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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“the first filter hosing is configured to” (claim 9, line 3) should be changed to --the first filter housing is configured to--;
“the first filter hosing is further configured to” (claim 9, line 4) should be changed to --the first filter housing is further configured to--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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 17-20 and 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.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the electrical outlet panel” (line 16). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, which renders the claim unclear and ambiguous. For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as best understood. Claims 18-20 are rejected on the basis they incorporate this limitation of claim 17.
Claim 23 recites the limitation “the propane regulator” (line 2). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, which renders the claim unclear and ambiguous. For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as best understood.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Fernandes in view of McCambridge, Zeiler, Marsolais, and Graves
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-13, 15-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20070182114 A1 (“Fernandes”) in view of US 20100017998 A1 (“McCambridge”), US 6806680 B2 (“Zeiler”), US 5089037 A (“Marsolais”), and US 20140048106 A1 (“Graves”).
Fernandes pertains to a portable cart including a vacuum system (Fig. 1H; ¶¶ 0105, 0117). McCambridge pertains to a portable cart with a vacuum system (Abstr.; Fig. 1). Zeiler pertains to a portable electric generator and is incorporated by reference into the Fernandes reference (Zeiler Abstr.; Fernandes ¶ 0117). Marsolais pertains to a portable cart including a vacuum system (Abstr.; Fig. 1). Graves pertains to a portable cart including a vacuum system (Abstr.; Fig. 2; claim 1). These references are in the same field of endeavor. To the extent Zeiler is not considered in the same field of endeavor, this reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor because it pertains to a portable electric generator that could be used in a portable cart to power a vacuum system.
Regarding claim 1, Fernandes discloses a combination cart (Fig. 1H, cart 10F), comprising:
a walk-behind mobile frame with a plurality of wheels mounted on the frame (Fig. 1H, frame 14 with wheels 18);
a shelf mounted on a first side of the frame (Figs. 1H, 2A, shelf on first side of frame 14 underneath propane tank 226),
a tank holder on a top portion of the shelf (Figs. 1H, 2A, the top surface of the shelf along with the surrounding edge (at reference 30 (Fig. 2A)) holds propane tank 226);
a platform mounted on a second side of the frame (Fig. 1H, platform on second side of frame (near reference 32));
a propane engine mounted on the frame (Fig. 1H; ¶ 0117, fuel-powered generator mounted on frame 14; ¶ 0107, propane tank 226 mounted on frame 14; see discussion below re “propane engine”);
an electrical generator mounted on the frame and powered by the propane engine (Fig. 1H; ¶ 0117, “a generator, an alternator...operable to supply electrical power” mounted on frame 14);
wherein electrical energy provided by the electrical generator is delivered to an electrical outlet panel mounted on the frame (Fig. 1H; ¶ 0115, “the cart 10 may also include an electrical supply arrangement having a power strip or one or more outlets to which an electrical device (e.g., a battery charger, a power tool 32, etc.) may be connected”);
a dust extraction and filtration system, driven by an electric motor, mounted on the frame and the platform (¶ 0105, “In some constructions, the cart may include an on-board dust collection system. The on-board system may include a fan or vacuum for generating an air flow from a work area and a storage container for collecting and storing dust/debris removed from the work area”; Examiner notes that a “filtration system” is inherently disclosed because for any vacuum system, the dust/debris from the inlet air has been filtered to some extent, such that the outlet air has less dust/debris than the inlet air (¶ 0105, “for collecting and storing dust/debris removed from the work area”); see discussion below re “driven by an electric motor” and “mounted on the frame and the platform”);
wherein the combination cart is operable in a plurality of operation modes (Fig. 1H; ¶¶ 0115, 0117, 0105, the cart is operable in a plurality of operation modes), including:
an electrical power generation operation mode, where the electrical generator is active and supplying power to the electrical outlet panel (Fig. 1H; ¶ 0117, “a generator, an alternator...operable to supply electrical power” mounted on frame 14; ¶ 0115, “the cart 10 may also include an electrical supply arrangement having a power strip or one or more outlets to which an electrical device (e.g., a battery charger, a power tool 32, etc.) may be connected”).
Fernandes does not explicitly disclose:
the shelf including a plurality of base legs;
a propane engine;
a dust extraction and filtration system, driven by an electric motor, mounted on the frame and the platform;
wherein the electric motor is configured to be selectively plugged into the electrical outlet panel to receive electrical energy from the electrical generator;
wherein the combination cart is operable in a plurality of operation modes, including:
a dust extraction and filtration operation mode, where the dust extraction and filtration system is powered by an external electrical source, and the electrical generator is inactive;
an electrical power generation operation mode, where the electrical generator is active and supplying power to the electrical outlet panel while the dust extraction and filtration system is turned off;
and a simultaneous dust extraction, filtration, and electrical power generation operation mode, where the electrical generator supplies power to the dust extraction and filtration system.,
and wherein the dust extraction and filtration system comprises a first filter housing and a second filter housing spaced apart from the first filter housing.
However, the Fernandes/McCambridge/Zeiler/Marsolais/Graves combination makes obvious this claim.
McCambridge discloses:
a walk-behind mobile frame with a plurality of wheels mounted on the frame (Fig. 1, frame 12 with wheels 26);
an electrical outlet panel mounted on the frame (Fig. 1, electrical outlet panel 104);
a dust extraction and filtration system, driven by an electric motor, mounted on the frame and the platform (Figs. 1-4; ¶ 0025, vacuum 28 on frame 12 and on top of a platform (between references 20 and 28) is driven by an “electric vacuum motor”; Examiner notes that a “filtration system” is inherently disclosed because for any vacuum system, the dust/debris from the inlet air has been filtered to some extent, such that the outlet air has less dust/debris than the inlet air (¶ 0028, “collected dust, hair and debris”));
wherein the electric motor is configured to be selectively plugged into the electrical outlet panel to receive electrical energy from the electrical generator (Figs. 1-4, 11-12; ¶ 0025, the vacuum 28 and its electric motor has its own power cord and is capable of being selectively plugged into the electrical outlet panel 104 (see discussion below re “to receive electrical energy from the electrical generator”));
wherein the combination cart is operable in a plurality of operation modes (Figs. 1-4; ¶¶ 0025, 0036, the cart is operable in a plurality of operation modes), including:
a dust extraction and filtration operation mode, where the dust extraction and filtration system is powered by an external electrical source, and the electrical generator is inactive (Fig. 11; ¶ 0025, “a power cord (FIG. 11) supplies power to the vacuum source 28 via a wall outlet”; ¶ 0036, “controller 102 provides the user with on/off and speed controls for the vacuum source 28”).
Zeiler discloses:
a propane engine (Fig. 5; 2:65-3:8, 46, “The combustion engine 46 may be powered by any type of fuel supply, such as, for example, a gasoline supply 50 (see FIG. 1) or a propane supply 50’ (see FIG. 5).”).
Marsolais discloses:
the shelf including a plurality of base legs (Fig. 1, shelf 100 with legs (e.g., one leg at reference 82));
a tank holder on a top portion of the shelf (Fig. 1; 3:45-49, tank holder 98 on top portion of shelf 100).
Graves discloses:
wherein the dust extraction and filtration system comprises a first filter housing and a second filter housing spaced apart from the first filter housing (Figs. 1-2; ¶¶ 0041-0051, vacuum system has a first filter housing with a first filter (“Pre-Filter Module”) with a primary particle container bag, followed by a HEPA second filter housing with a second filter; see discussion below re “spaced apart”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of McCambridge with Fernandes to use the vacuum system (with controller 102) of McCambridge and attach it to the platform of Fernandes, where the vacuum system (driven by an internal electric motor) is capable of being plugged into the onboard electrical outlets of Fernandes or to an external electrical outlet (Fernandes does not state where the disclosed onboard vacuum resides). With this modification, the Fernandes/McCambridge combination would be able to operate in the plurality of operation modes as claimed, including:
a dust extraction and filtration operation mode, where the dust extraction and filtration system is powered by an external electrical source, and the electrical generator is inactive (disclosed by McCambridge (see above), performed by plugging the power cord into an external electrical outlet);
an electrical power generation operation mode, where the electrical generator is active and supplying power to the electrical outlet panel while the dust extraction and filtration system is turned off (operable in the modified system by unplugging the McCambridge power cord from the Fernandes onboard electrical outlets, or if plugged in, turning the McCambridge controller 102 “off” for the vacuum system, while the Fernandes electric generator is powered on);
and a simultaneous dust extraction, filtration, and electrical power generation operation mode, where the electrical generator supplies power to the dust extraction and filtration system (operable in the modified system by plugging the McCambridge power cord into the Fernandes onboard electrical outlets and turning controller 102 “on” to operate vacuum system, while the Fernandes electric generator is powered on).
This modification would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because even though Fernandes does not describe the disclosed onboard vacuum system in detail, it would have been obvious to use an electric vacuum system for the onboard vacuum system of Fernandes because this is a case of simple substitution (the Fernandes vacuum is not described in detail), and electric vacuums are common, convenient, and easily replaceable if broken (e.g., replace with another common electric vacuum). Further, the cart configuration explicitly disclosed in Fernandes (i.e., having an onboard electric generator and a platform) would easily accommodate a typical electric vacuum system, such as the one disclosed by McCambridge. The different operation modes claimed are merely obvious uses of a cart that has both an onboard electric generator and an onboard vacuum that could be performed by connecting/disconnecting or switching on/off the onboard vacuum. The particular location of the vacuum would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because it is simply a design choice (e.g., placement on the top platform could be advantageous for ergonomics and user access). Applicant has not disclosed that having the vacuum placed on the platform provides an advantage, solves any stated problem, or is used for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with other designs. Absent a teaching as to criticality of this arrangement as claimed, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to this particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975).
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Zeiler with the Fernandes/McCambridge combination to use a propane engine (with the Fernandes onboard propane tank 226) as the onboard “fuel-powered power source” (Fernandes ¶ 0117) because a propane engine is a common type of fuel-powered power source (simple substitution) for the same application that would yield similar, predictable results. Also, Fernandes explicitly identifies Zeiler (and expressly incorporates Zeiler by reference) as an example fuel-powered power source that could be used (Fernandes ¶ 0117).
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Marsolais with the Fernandes/McCambridge/Zeiler combination to further modify the Fernandes cart to add a shelf or modify the disclosed shelf with a plurality of base legs. Fernandes discloses placement of a propane tank in a tank holder on a shelf (that has no legs) that is located at the bottom of the cart (Fernandes Figs. 1H, 2A propane tank 226 on “tank holder” of shelf at reference 30 (Fig. 2A)). Marsolais discloses a storage compartment on a top portion of the shelf 100, which could be used to hold a propane tank (Marsolais Fig. 1; 3:45-49). This would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because it is simply a design choice of where to place the propane tank (e.g., higher on a shelf inside a storage compartment (“tank holder”) could be advantageous for tank stability and better access to the tank when using a shorter fuel hose). Applicant has not disclosed that having the tank holder located on a shelf with a plurality of base legs provides an advantage, solves any stated problem, or is used for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with other designs. Absent a teaching as to criticality of this arrangement as claimed, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to this particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975).
Finally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Graves with the Fernandes/McCambridge/Zeiler/Marsolais combination to modify the dust extraction and filtration system (of the above combination) to that as recited, because the use of a two-stage dust filer, including a removable particle bag (first filter) and a HEPA secondary filter, would result in less dust in the environment, as the bag could be disposed entirely and replaced with a new bag, and the HEPA secondary filter is capable of very fine filtering (Graves ¶ 0049, “a HEPA filter must be capable of removing 99.97% of all particles greater than 0.3 micrometer from the air that passes through.”). To the extent Graves does not disclose that the second filter housing is spaced apart from the first filter housing (Graves Figs. 1-2, the first and second filter housings are in separate chambers of the device), this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because it is merely a design choice of how to construct and connect the housings of the first and second filters. For example, a second filter housing that is spaced apart from and separate from the first filter housing (see Graves Fig. 2) would allow for replacement of either filter housing without having to replace the entire device. Examiner notes that Applicant states no novel or unexpected result due to making the second filter housing spaced apart from the first filter housing. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523 (CCPA 1961) (“If it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of Peterson’s holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose.”); MPEP § 2144.04(V)(C).
Regarding claim 3, the Fernandes/McCambridge/Zeiler/Marsolais/Graves combination makes obvious the combination cart of claim 1 as applied above. Graves further discloses wherein the dust extraction and filtration system is a multi-stage extraction system including a first particulate filter with a collection bag followed by a high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter (Figs. 1-2; ¶¶ 0041-0051, vacuum system has a first particulate filter (“Pre-Filter Module”) with a primary particle container bag, followed by a HEPA secondary filter module).
The obviousness rationale for claim 3 is the same as for claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, the Fernandes/McCambridge/Zeiler/Marsolais/Graves combination makes obvious the combination cart of claim 1 as applied above. McCambridge further discloses wherein the dust extraction and filtration system includes a hose connection fitting adapted for connection to a plurality of different tools, including hand-held tools with dust collection shrouds and/or ports (Figs. 1, 11, 12; ¶ 0036-0037, hose connection fitting 60 is capable for connecting to a plurality of different hand-held tools (e.g., hose 94 and vacuum nozzle 97; hose 124 and clipper 120); Examiner notes that the “different tools” and “hand-held tools” are not positively claimed).
The obviousness rationale for claim 4 is the same as for claim 1, with the addition of including the auxiliary vacuum tools that are disclosed in McCambridge because they are common and would be useful to use with the vacuum system for different vacuuming jobs.
Regarding claim 5, the Fernandes/McCambridge/Zeiler/Marsolais/Graves combination makes obvious the combination cart of claim 1 as applied above. As discussed for claim 1, the Fernandes/McCambridge combination makes obvious the limitation wherein, in the simultaneous dust extraction, filtration, and electrical power generation operation mode, the electric motor driving the dust extraction and filtration system is plugged into the electrical outlet panel (electric motor of McCambridge vacuum system is plugged into (via power cord) the Fernandes onboard electrical outlets).
Regarding claim 8, the Fernandes/McCambridge/Zeiler/Marsolais/Graves combination makes obvious the combination cart of claim 1 as applied above. Graves further discloses wherein the second filter housing is in fluid communication with the first filter housing (Figs. 1-2; ¶¶ 0041-0051, vacuum system has a first filter housing with a first filter (“Pre-Filter Module”) with a primary particle container bag, followed by a HEPA second filter housing with a second filter).
The obviousness rationale is the same as for claim 1. Regarding the connection of the second filter housing to the first filter housing via a hose, Graves discloses the use of a hose with the vacuum system for fluid communication (Graves ¶¶ 0054-0055), and it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to connect the second filter housing to the first filter housing (as modified in claim 1 to be “spaced apart”) because it is merely combining known elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Regarding the mounting of the first filter housing to the platform and the second filter housing to the frame, this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because it is simply a design choice of where to place these items. Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed placement of the first and second filter housings provides an advantage, solves any stated problem, or is used for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with other designs. Absent a teaching as to criticality of this arrangement as claimed, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to this particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 9, the Fernandes/McCambridge/Zeiler/Marsolais/Graves combination makes obvious the combination cart of claim 8 as applied above. Graves further discloses wherein the dust extraction and filtration system comprises a collection bag disposed between the first filter housing and the frame, wherein the first filter ho[u]sing is configured to collect larger particulates and deposit the larger particulates into the collection bag, and the first filter ho[u]sing is further configured to deliver smaller particulates to the second filter housing via the hose (Figs. 1-2; ¶¶ 0041-0051, vacuum system has a first filter housing with a first filter (“Pre-Filter Module”) with a primary particle container bag (for collecting larger particulate), followed by a HEPA second filter housing with a second filter (for collecting smaller particulates).
The obviousness rationale is the same as for claim 8, where a hose was added connecting the second filter housing to the first filter housing. Regarding the location of the collection bag, this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because it is simply a design choice of where to place this item. Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed placement of the collection bag provides an advantage, solves any stated problem, or is used for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with other designs. Absent a teaching as to criticality of this arrangement as claimed, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to this particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 10, the Fernandes/McCambridge/Zeiler/Marsolais/Graves combination makes obvious the combination cart of claim 8 as applied above. Graves further discloses wherein the second filter housing includes an input port connected to a first end of the hose (Figs. 1-2, inlet aperture for secondary filter module).
The obviousness rationale is the same as for claim 8, where a hose was added connecting the second filter housing to the first filter housing. Regarding the limitation “wherein the second filter housing is disposed between the shelf and the platform”, this claimed location would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because it is simply a design choice of where to place this item. Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed placement of the second filter housing provides an advantage, solves any stated problem, or is used for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with other designs. Absent a teaching as to criticality of this arrangement as claimed, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to this particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 11, the Fernandes/McCambridge/Zeiler/Marsolais/Graves combination makes obvious the combination cart of claim 8 as applied above. Graves further discloses wherein the second filter housing comprises a high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter (Figs. 1-2; ¶¶ 0041-0051, vacuum system has a first filter housing with a first filter (“Pre-Filter Module”) with a primary particle container bag, followed by a HEPA second filter housing with a second filter).
The obviousness rationale is the same as for claim 8.
Regarding claim 12, the Fernandes/McCambridge/Zeiler/Marsolais/Graves combination makes obvious the combination cart of claim 1 as applied above. Regarding the limitation “wherein the electrical outlet panel is disposed between a first base leg of the plurality of base legs and a second base leg of the plurality of base legs”, this claimed location would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because it is simply a design choice of where to place this item (e.g., placing the electrical outlet panel between the two legs below shelf 100 of Marsolais, as added/modified with the Fernandes cart). Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed placement of the electrical outlet panel provides an advantage, solves any stated problem, or is used for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with other designs. Absent a teaching as to criticality of this arrangement as claimed, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to this particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 13, the Fernandes/McCambridge/Zeiler/Marsolais/Graves combination makes obvious the combination cart of claim 1 as applied above. Regarding the limitation “wherein the propane engine is disposed between the frame and a top portion of the shelf”, this claimed location would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because it is simply a design choice of where to place this item. Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed placement of the propane engine provides an advantage, solves any stated problem, or is used for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with other designs. Absent a teaching as to criticality of this arrangement as claimed, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to this particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 15, the Fernandes/McCambridge/Zeiler/Marsolais/Graves combination makes obvious the combination cart of claim 1 as applied above. Fernandes further discloses a handle (Fig. 1H, handle mounted to frame (near reference 32)).
Regarding the mounting of the handle to the shelf, this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because it is simply a design choice of where to place this item. Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed placement of the handle provides an advantage, solves any stated problem, or is used for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with other designs. Absent a teaching as to criticality of this arrangement as claimed, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to this particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 16, the Fernandes/McCambridge/Zeiler/Marsolais/Graves combination makes obvious the combination cart of claim 1 as applied above. Regarding the limitation “wherein the electrical generator is disposed between the frame and a top portion of the shelf”, this claimed location would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because it is simply a design choice of where to place this item. Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed placement of the electrical generator provides an advantage, solves any stated problem, or is used for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with other designs. Absent a teaching as to criticality of this arrangement as claimed, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to this particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 17, Fernandes discloses a mobile cart (Fig. 1H, cart 10F), comprising:
a frame with a main surface (Fig. 1H, frame 14 with main surface on top);
a shelf on a first portion of the main surface, the shelf including...a shelf surface (Figs. 1H, 2A, shelf on first portion of main surface of frame 14 underneath propane tank 226);
a platform on a second portion of the main surface, the platform including a plurality of supporting structures and a platform surface, the plurality of supporting structures mounted on the second portion of the main surface (Fig. 1H, platform on second side of frame (near reference 32), including top surface of platform and supporting structures 14/82 mounted on the second portion of the main surface);
a tank holder on the shelf surface (Figs. 1H, 2A, the top surface of the shelf along with the surrounding edge (at reference 30 (Fig. 2A)) holds propane tank 226);
a plurality of wheels mounted on the frame (Fig. 1H, frame 14 with wheels 18);
a propane engine mounted on the first portion of the main surface (Figs. 1H, 2A, the top surface of the shelf along with the surrounding edge (at reference 30 (Fig. 2A)) holds propane tank 226);
an electrical generator mounted on the first portion of the main surface and powered by the propane engine (Fig. 1H; ¶ 0117, “a generator, an alternator...operable to supply electrical power” mounted on frame 14);
a dust extraction and filtration system comprising a first filter housing... (¶ 0105, “In some constructions, the cart may include an on-board dust collection system. The on-board system may include a fan or vacuum for generating an air flow from a work area and a storage container for collecting and storing dust/debris removed from the work area”; Examiner notes that a “filtration system” is inherently disclosed because for any vacuum system, the dust/debris from the inlet air has been filtered to some extent, such that the outlet air has less dust/debris than the inlet air (¶ 0105, “for collecting and storing dust/debris removed from the work area”)),
wherein electrical energy generated by the electrical generator is delivered to an electrical outlet panel mounted on the frame (Fig. 1H; ¶ 0115, “the cart 10 may also include an electrical supply arrangement having a power strip or one or more outlets to which an electrical device (e.g., a battery charger, a power tool 32, etc.) may be connected”).
Fernandes does not explicitly disclose:
the shelf including a plurality of legs and a shelf surface, the plurality of legs mounted on the first portion of the main surface;
a propane engine,
and a dust extraction and filtration system comprising a first filter housing and a second filter housing spaced apart from the first filter housing,
wherein the dust extraction and filtration system is driven by an electric motor configured to be selectively plugged into the electrical outlet panel to receive electrical energy from the electrical generator.
However, the Fernandes/McCambridge/Zeiler/Marsolais/Graves combination makes obvious this claim.
McCambridge discloses:
wherein the dust extraction and filtration system is driven by an electric motor configured to be selectively plugged into the electrical outlet panel to receive electrical energy from the electrical generator (Figs. 1-4; ¶ 0025, vacuum 28 on frame 12 and on top of a platform (between references 20 and 28) is driven by an “electric vacuum motor”; Examiner notes that a “filtration system” is inherently disclosed because for any vacuum system, the dust/debris from the inlet air has been filtered to some extent, such that the outlet air has less dust/debris than the inlet air (¶ 0028, “collected dust, hair and debris”); Figs. 1-4, 11-12; ¶ 0025, the vacuum 28 and its electric motor has its own power cord and is capable of being selectively plugged into the electrical outlet panel 104 (see discussion below re “to receive electrical energy from the electrical generator”)).
Zeiler discloses:
a propane engine (Fig. 5; 2:65-3:8, 46, “The combustion engine 46 may be powered by any type of fuel supply, such as, for example, a gasoline supply 50 (see FIG. 1) or a propane supply 50’ (see FIG. 5).”).
Marsolais discloses:
the shelf including a plurality of legs and a shelf surface, the plurality of legs mounted on the first portion of the main surface (Fig. 1, shelf 100 with legs (e.g., one leg at reference 82) mounted on the first portion of the main surface of frame 20);
a tank holder on the shelf surface (Fig. 1; 3:45-49, tank holder 98 on top portion of shelf 100).
Graves discloses:
a dust extraction and filtration system comprising a first filter housing and a second filter housing spaced apart from the first filter housing (Figs. 1-2; ¶¶ 0041-0051, vacuum system has a first filter housing with a first filter (“Pre-Filter Module”) with a primary particle container bag, followed by a HEPA second filter housing with a second filter; see discussion below re “spaced apart”).
The obviousness rationale is the same as for claim 1. Regarding the mounted location of the propane engine and the electrical generator, this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because it is simply a design choice of where to place these items. Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed placement provides an advantage, solves any stated problem, or is used for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with other designs. Absent a teaching as to criticality of this arrangement as claimed, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to this particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 19, the Fernandes/McCambridge/Zeiler/Marsolais/Graves combination makes obvious the mobile cart of claim 17 as applied above.
Fernandes further discloses:
wherein the dust extraction and filtration system comprises: the first filter housing mounted to the platform surface (¶ 0105, “In some constructions, the cart may include an on-board dust collection system. The on-board system may include a fan or vacuum for generating an air flow from a work area and a storage container for collecting and storing dust/debris removed from the work area”; Examiner notes that a “filtration system” is inherently disclosed because for any vacuum system, the dust/debris from the inlet air has been filtered to some extent, such that the outlet air has less dust/debris than the inlet air (¶ 0105, “for collecting and storing dust/debris removed from the work area”); see discussion below re “driven by an electric motor” and “mounted on the frame and the platform”).
McCambridge further discloses:
wherein the dust extraction and filtration system comprises: the first filter housing mounted to the platform surface (Figs. 1-4; ¶ 0025, vacuum 28 with first filter housing mounted to frame 12 the top of a platform (between references 20 and 28); Examiner notes that a “filtration system” is inherently disclosed because for any vacuum system, the dust/debris from the inlet air has been filtered to some extent, such that the outlet air has less dust/debris than the inlet air (¶ 0028, “collected dust, hair and debris”));
wherein the dust extraction and filtration system is powered by the electrical outlet panel mounted on the frame or an external power source (Fig. 11; ¶ 0025, “a power cord (FIG. 11) supplies power to the vacuum source 28 via a wall outlet”; ¶ 0036, “controller 102 provides the user with on/off and speed controls for the vacuum source 28”).
Graves further discloses:
wherein the dust extraction and filtration system comprises: the first filter housing mounted to the platform surface; the second filter housing mounted on the main surface, the second filter housing in fluid communication with the first filter housing...; a particulate filter with a collection bag associated with the first filter housing; and a high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter associated with the second filter housing (Figs. 1-2; ¶¶ 0041-0051, vacuum system has a first filter housing with a first filter (“Pre-Filter Module”) with a primary particle container bag, followed by a HEPA second filter housing with a second filter).
The obviousness rationale is the same as for claims 17 and 8 (for the “via a hose” limitation), including the rationale provided in claim 1, but depending from claim 17. Regarding the mounting locations of the first filter housing and the second filter housing, this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because it is simply a design choice of where to place these items. Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed placement provides an advantage, solves any stated problem, or is used for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with other designs. Absent a teaching as to criticality of this arrangement as claimed, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to this particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 20, the Fernandes/McCambridge/Zeiler/Marsolais/Graves combination makes obvious the mobile cart of claim 19 as applied above. Regarding the limitation “wherein the first filter housing is positioned at a height greater than the second filter housing”, this claimed location would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because it is simply a design choice of where to place these items. Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed placement provides an advantage, solves any stated problem, or is used for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with other designs. Absent a teaching as to criticality of this arrangement as claimed, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to this particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975).
Fernandes in view of McCambridge, Zeiler, Marsolais, Graves, and Duch
Claims 2 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20070182114 A1 (“Fernandes”) in view of US 20100017998 A1 (“McCambridge”), US 6806680 B2 (“Zeiler”), US 5089037 A (“Marsolais”), US 20140048106 A1 (“Graves”) and US 20090293462 A1 (“Duch”).
Fernandes pertains to a portable cart including a vacuum system (Fig. 1H; ¶¶ 0105, 0117). McCambridge pertains to a portable cart with a vacuum system (Abstr.; Fig. 1). Zeiler pertains to a portable electric generator and is incorporated by reference into the Fernandes reference (Zeiler Abstr.; Fernandes ¶ 0117). Marsolais pertains to a portable cart including a vacuum system (Abstr.; Fig. 1). Graves pertains to a portable cart including a vacuum system (Abstr.; Fig. 2; claim 1). These references are in the same field of endeavor. To the extent Zeiler is not considered in the same field of endeavor, this reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor because it pertains to a portable electric generator that could be used in a portable cart to power a vacuum system. Duch pertains to a catalytic muffler for portable electric generators (Abstr.; Fig. 2; ¶ 0001) and is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor because it pertains to a catalytic muffler for portable electric generators that could be used in a portable cart to power a vacuum system.
Regarding claim 2, the Fernandes/McCambridge/Zeiler/Marsolais/Graves combination makes obvious the combination cart of claim 1 as applied above. Fernandes, McCambridge, Zeiler, Marsolais, and Graves do not explicitly disclose wherein the propane engine includes a catalytic muffler facilitating indoor use. However, the Fernandes/McCambridge/Zeiler/Marsolais/Graves/Duch combination makes obvious this claim.
Duch discloses wherein the propane engine includes a catalytic muffler facilitating indoor use (Figs. 2, 11, catalytic muffler 14; ¶¶ 0001, 0024).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Duch with the Fernandes/McCambridge/Zeiler/Marsolais/Graves combination to add a catalytic muffler because it would “treat[] the exhaust gases of an internal combustion engine” (Duch ¶¶ 0004-0005) and would also reduce the exhaust sound, which would make the environment more pleasant to work in due to less air and sound pollution.
Regarding claim 14, the Fernandes/McCambridge/Zeiler/Marsolais/Graves combination makes obvious the combination cart of claim 1 as applied above. Fernandes, McCambridge, Zeiler, Marsolais, and Graves do not explicitly disclose a catalytic muffler disposed between the frame and a top portion of the shelf. However, the Fernandes/McCambridge/Zeiler/Marsolais/Graves/Duch combination makes obvious this claim.
Duch discloses a catalytic muffler (Figs. 2, 11, catalytic muffler 14; ¶¶ 0001, 0024).
The obviousness rationale is the same as for claim 2. Regarding the location of the catalytic muffler, this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because it is simply a design choice of where to place this item. Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed placement of the catalytic muffler provides an advantage, solves any stated problem, or is used for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with other designs. Absent a teaching as to criticality of this arrangement as claimed, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to this particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975).
Fernandes in view of McCambridge, Zeiler, Marsolais, Graves, and Horst
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20070182114 A1 (“Fernandes”) in view of US 20100017998 A1 (“McCambridge”), US 6806680 B2 (“Zeiler”), US 5089037 A (“Marsolais”), US 20140048106 A1 (“Graves”) and US 20220131485 A1 (“Horst”).
Fernandes pertains to a portable cart including a vacuum system (Fig. 1H; ¶¶ 0105, 0117). McCambridge pertains to a portable cart with a vacuum system (Abstr.; Fig. 1). Zeiler pertains to a portable electric generator and is incorporated by reference into the Fernandes reference (Zeiler Abstr.; Fernandes ¶ 0117). Marsolais pertains to a portable cart including a vacuum system (Abstr.; Fig. 1). Graves pertains to a portable cart including a vacuum system (Abstr.; Fig. 2; claim 1). These references are in the same field of endeavor. To the extent Zeiler is not considered in the same field of endeavor, this reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor because it pertains to a portable electric generator that could be used in a portable cart to power a vacuum system. Horst pertains to a portable electric generator (Abstr.; Figs. 1, 6) and is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor because it pertains to a portable electric generator that could be used in a portable cart to power a vacuum system.
Regarding claim 6, the Fernandes/McCambridge/Zeiler/Marsolais/Graves combination makes obvious the combination cart of claim 1 as applied above. Fernandes, McCambridge, Zeiler, Marsolais, and Graves do not explicitly disclose wherein the electrical outlet panel provides electrical power at different voltages or with different types of electrical outlets. However, the Fernandes/McCambridge/Zeiler/Marsolais/Graves/Horst combination makes obvious this claim.
Horst discloses wherein the electrical outlet panel provides electrical power at different voltages or with different types of electrical outlets (Fig. 6; ¶ 0047, electrical outlet panel 608 has different types of outlets that operate at different voltages).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Horst with the Fernandes/McCambridge/Zeiler/Marsolais/Graves combination to modify the electrical generator of Fernandes to output different voltages and to modify the electrical outlet panel of Fernandes to have different outlet types that correlate to the different voltages. This would have been obvious because this would allow more different types of electrical equipment to the cart, giving greater utility to the cart (Horst ¶¶ 0047-0048, “Larger voltages may be produced by the generator 102 for devices such as pumps, tools at construction sites, spotlights, or the like...prongs for inserting electrical devices that take power may be plugged into the outlets 608. The shape and size of the prongs may vary based on plug standards in use in various countries and regions. The power sockets of portable generators may generally conform to the plug standards used for building electric sockets.”).
Fernandes in view of McCambridge, Zeiler, Marsolais, Graves, and Patrono
Claims 7, 18, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20070182114 A1 (“Fernandes”) in view of US 20100017998 A1 (“McCambridge”), US 6806680 B2 (“Zeiler”), US 5089037 A (“Marsolais”), US 20140048106 A1 (“Graves”) and US 20130061419 A1 (“Patrono”).
Fernandes pertains to a portable cart including a vacuum system (Fig. 1H; ¶¶ 0105, 0117). McCambridge pertains to a portable cart with a vacuum system (Abstr.; Fig. 1). Zeiler pertains to a portable electric generator and is incorporated by reference into the Fernandes reference (Zeiler Abstr.; Fernandes ¶ 0117). Marsolais pertains to a portable cart including a vacuum system (Abstr.; Fig. 1). Graves pertains to a portable cart including a vacuum system (Abstr.; Fig. 2; claim 1). Patrono pertains to a portable vacuum system (Abstr.; Fig. 1). These references are in the same field of endeavor. To the extent Zeiler is not considered in the same field of endeavor, this reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor because it pertains to a portable electric generator that could be used in a portable cart to power a vacuum system.
Regarding claim 7, the Fernandes/McCambridge/Zeiler/Marsolais/Graves combination makes obvious the combination cart of claim 1 as applied above. Fernandes further discloses a propane tank (Fig. 1H; ¶ 0117, fuel-powered generator mounted on frame 14; ¶ 0107, propane tank 226 mounted on frame 14). Fernandes, McCambridge, Zeiler, Marsolais, and Graves do not explicitly disclose a propane regulator mounted on the shelf, the propane regulator in fluid communication with the propane engine and a propane tank suppling propane to the propane engine. However, the Fernandes/McCambridge/Zeiler/Marsolais/Graves/Patrono combination makes obvious this claim.
Patrono discloses a propane regulator mounted on the shelf, the propane regulator in fluid communication with the propane engine and a propane tank suppling propane to the propane engine (Fig. 1; ¶¶ 0032, 0035-0036, propane tank 34 supplies propane to the propane engine 36 via a propane regulator, see discussion below re “mounted on the shelf”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Patrono with the Fernandes/McCambridge/Zeiler/Marsolais/Graves combination to add a propane regulator (to the extent one is not implicitly present in Fernandes). This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill because, “as previously known in the art, the fuel system can include a carburetor, pressure regulator, vacuum lock-off valve, and a fuel inlet fitting 38 to which the propane fuel canister is attached. The carburetor mixes the propane fuel with air in the correct proportions and introduces the mixture to the inlet manifold of the engine 36. The pressure regulator controls the pressure of the propane fuel so that it is constant at the carburetor regardless of the pressure in the propane fuel canister.” (Patrono ¶ 0035).
Regarding the mounting of the propane regulator on the shelf, this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because it is simply a design choice of where to place the propane regulator (e.g., somewhere between the propane tank and the propane engine). Applicant has not disclosed that having the propane regulator located on the shelf provides an advantage, solves any stated problem, or is used for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with other designs. Absent a teaching as to criticality of this arrangement as claimed, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to this particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 18, the Fernandes/McCambridge/Zeiler/Marsolais/Graves combination makes obvious the mobile cart of claim 17 as applied above. Fernandes further discloses a propane tank (Fig. 1H; ¶ 0117, fuel-powered generator mounted on frame 14; ¶ 0107, propane tank 226 mounted on frame 14). Fernandes, McCambridge, Zeiler, Marsolais, and Graves do not explicitly disclose a propane regulator mounted on the shelf, the propane regulator in fluid communication with the propane engine and a propane tank suppling propane to the propane engine. However, the Fernandes/McCambridge/Zeiler/Marsolais/Graves/Patrono combination makes obvious this claim.
Patrono discloses a propane regulator mounted on the shelf, the propane regulator in fluid communication with the propane engine and a propane tank suppling propane to the propane engine (Fig. 1; ¶¶ 0032, 0035-0036, propane tank 34 supplies propane to the propane engine 36 via a propane regulator, see discussion below re “mounted on the shelf”).
The obviousness rationale is the same as for claim 7, but depending from claim 17.
Regarding claim 23, the Fernandes/McCambridge/Zeiler/Marsolais/Graves combination makes obvious the combination cart of claim 1 as applied above. Fernandes, McCambridge, Zeiler, Marsolais, and Graves do not explicitly disclose a high-pressure propane line feeding the propane engine through the propane regulator. However, the Fernandes/McCambridge/Zeiler/Marsolais/Graves/Patrono combination makes obvious this claim.
Patrono discloses a high-pressure propane line feeding the propane engine through the propane regulator (Fig. 1; ¶¶ 0032, 0035-0036, propane tank 34 supplies propane to the propane engine 36 via a propane regulator that are connected via high pressure propane lines).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Patrono with the Fernandes/McCambridge/Zeiler/Marsolais/Graves combination to add a propane regulator (to the extent one is not implicitly present in Fernandes) and high pressure lines as recited. The obviousness rationale is the same as for claim 7, with the addition that the use of a “high-pressure propane line” would have been obvious as well as it is a commonly used component to connect various components of a propane system to the source of the propane gas (where the propane gas is inherently under high pressure). Examiner notes that the term “high-pressure propane line” is not described in the specification to be of a particular pressure rating, and under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, such a propane line would be considered high pressure if it could safety conduct propane gas from a source to a destination.
Fernandes in view of McCambridge, Zeiler, Marsolais, Graves, and Brooks
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20070182114 A1 (“Fernandes”) in view of US 20100017998 A1 (“McCambridge”), US 6806680 B2 (“Zeiler”), US 5089037 A (“Marsolais”), US 20140048106 A1 (“Graves”) and US 6902429 A (“Brooks”).
Fernandes pertains to a portable cart including a vacuum system (Fig. 1H; ¶¶ 0105, 0117). McCambridge pertains to a portable cart with a vacuum system (Abstr.; Fig. 1). Zeiler pertains to a portable electric generator and is incorporated by reference into the Fernandes reference (Zeiler Abstr.; Fernandes ¶ 0117). Marsolais pertains to a portable cart including a vacuum system (Abstr.; Fig. 1). Graves pertains to a portable cart including a vacuum system (Abstr.; Fig. 2; claim 1). These references are in the same field of endeavor. To the extent Zeiler is not considered in the same field of endeavor, this reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor because it pertains to a portable electric generator that could be used in a portable cart to power a vacuum system. Brooks pertains to a multiple electrical outlet device (Abstr.; Figs. 1-2; 1:5-27) and is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor because it pertains to an electrical outlet that could be used as an electrical panel in a portable cart to power a vacuum system.
Regarding claim 21, the Fernandes/McCambridge/Zeiler/Marsolais/Graves combination makes obvious the mobile cart of claim 1 as applied above. Fernandes, McCambridge, Zeiler, Marsolais, and Graves do not explicitly disclose wherein the electrical outlet panel comprises 120-volt outlets and 220-volt outlets. However, the Fernandes/McCambridge/Zeiler/Marsolais/Graves/Brooks combination makes obvious this claim.
Brooks discloses wherein the electrical outlet panel comprises 120-volt outlets and 220-volt outlets (Figs. 1-2; 3:20-31, 220-volt and 110 volt outlets on the same electrical outlet device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Brooks with the Fernandes/McCambridge/Zeiler/Marsolais/Graves combination to modify the electrical generator and electrical outlet panel of Fernandes to have both 120-volt and 220-volt outlets. This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill because this allows equipment that runs on both 120-volt AC and 220-volt AC to be used with the cart without the need for a transformer, and further “The invention is easy to use and allows for a very efficient use of the user’s time because one 220 volt power cord supplies both a 220 volt outlet receptacle and multiple 110 volts outlet receptacles, so the user only has to use one cord to connect to multiple types of outlets.” (Brooks Abstr.; 1:12-27). It should be noted that while Brooks describes 110 volt AC outlets, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this disclosure pertains to 120-volt AC outlets, which are sometimes referred to as 110-volt AC outlets and vice-versa.
Fernandes in view of McCambridge, Zeiler, Marsolais, Graves, and McIntyre
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20070182114 A1 (“Fernandes”) in view of US 20100017998 A1 (“McCambridge”), US 6806680 B2 (“Zeiler”), US 5089037 A (“Marsolais”), US 20140048106 A1 (“Graves”) and US 6170118 B1 (“McIntyre”).
Fernandes pertains to a portable cart including a vacuum system (Fig. 1H; ¶¶ 0105, 0117). McCambridge pertains to a portable cart with a vacuum system (Abstr.; Fig. 1). Zeiler pertains to a portable electric generator and is incorporated by reference into the Fernandes reference (Zeiler Abstr.; Fernandes ¶ 0117). Marsolais pertains to a portable cart including a vacuum system (Abstr.; Fig. 1). Graves pertains to a portable cart including a vacuum system (Abstr.; Fig. 2; claim 1). McIntyre pertains to a portable vacuum system (Abstr.; Figs. 1-4). These references are in the same field of endeavor. To the extent Zeiler is not considered in the same field of endeavor, this reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor because it pertains to a portable electric generator that could be used in a portable cart to power a vacuum system.
Regarding claim 22, the Fernandes/McCambridge/Zeiler/Marsolais/Graves combination makes obvious the mobile cart of claim 1 as applied above. Fernandes, McCambridge, Zeiler, Marsolais, and Graves do not explicitly disclose wherein the dust extraction and filtration system includes a connector compatible with standard 2-inch and 3-inch hoses. However, the Fernandes/McCambridge/Zeiler/Marsolais/Graves/McIntyre combination makes obvious this claim.
McIntyre discloses wherein the dust extraction and filtration system includes a connector compatible with standard 2-inch and 3-inch hoses (Figs. 1-4; 9:34-39, inlet adapter 56 fits with “a variety of hose sizes”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of McIntyre with the Fernandes/McCambridge/Zeiler/Marsolais/Graves combination to modify the dust extraction and filtration system to include an adapter capable of fitting with standard 2-inch and 3-inch vacuum hoses. This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill because this allows for greater flexibility in the use of the various vacuum attachments, where some may be designed to fit with a 2-inch hose and others with a 3-inch vacuum hose (see US 20070089262 A1 (“Drevitson”) ¶ 0045, 0056, claims 10-11, describing hoses of various diameters including 2 inches and 3 inches).
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendment and remarks have been considered. Claims 1-23 are pending. Claims 1-23 are rejected.
Claims – The objections to claim 9 have only been partially addressed. The term “hosing” should be “housing” as indicated in the objection above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments for claim 1 (Reply at 8-9) are addressed in the new rejection of claim 1 above. Applicant focuses on the bodily incorporation of secondary references, such as the discussed based on the propane vacuum system of Patrono (Reply at 9). Examiner also notes that there are at least two power cords disclosed in McCambridge, one associated with the entire mobile vacuum cart (cord 108) (Fig. 11) and one associated with the vacuum itself (Fig. 4). The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981); MPEP § 2145(III).
Applicant does not present any further arguments concerning the remaining claims.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 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 extension fee pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENT N SHUM whose telephone number is (703)756-1435. The examiner can normally be reached 1230-2230 EASTERN TIME M-TH.
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 S CARTER can be reached at (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.
/KENT N SHUM/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights