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 .
This Office action is in response to amendments filed on 07/22/2025. Claims 1-15 are pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/18/2026 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
The Examiner notes the accepted meaning of “gradually evolves” in the claims and specification is “gradually transitions,” consistent with applicant’s Remarks filed on 02/18/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tucker (US Patent No. 11,358,456), from cited references in Final Rejection filed on 11/25/2024.
Regarding claim 1, Tucker discloses a cyclone unit (figs. 1-6) for separating liquid and particles from a flow through the cyclone unit (col. 4, ll. 25-50), the cyclone unit having a cyclone axis of rotation (col. 4, ll. 33-37; designated in annotated fig. 5A below), wherein the cyclone unit comprises:
an outer housing (items i12, 14, 22; fig. 1) having an outer side wall (designated in annotated fig. 5A below), a bottom end, and a top end (both ends designated in annotated fig. 5A below) positioned along the cyclone axis (according to Word Reference Dictionary, “along” is defined by and synonymous to next to, besides, by; therefore, the bottom and top ends are besides the axis of rotation, i.e. extending along cyclone axis of rotation in parallel direction; similar to applicant’s disclosure);
a main flow inlet (defined as passageway within upper portion of item 20 entering into outer housing, col. 6, ll. 8-18) to the outer housing comprising an opening in the outer housing (opening defined as entrance point to the interior of the outer housing in which main flow inlet directly leads into, col. 6, ll. 8-18; similar to applicant’s disclosure);
a main flow outlet (defined as outlet from cyclone separator into discharge conduit 16, similar to applicant’s disclosure; designated in first annotated fig. 5A below) from the outer housing closer to the bottom end than the main flow inlet (main flow outlet is closer in position to the bottom end than the main flow inlet, which is positioned in the upper portion of the cyclone unit, col. 6, ll. 31-39),
PNG
media_image1.png
618
595
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Tucker First Annotated Fig. 5A.
wherein an interface between the main flow inlet and the outer housing has, at least portion for a portion of the opening on a bottom end side of the main flow inlet, a radius of curvature to a local tangent to the main flow inlet (according to Dictionary.com, “interface” is defined as a point where two systems meet and interact; therefore, when viewed from a cross-sectional view taken along lines V-V in fig. 2A, the point in which the main flow inlet and outer housing meet is designated within bolded circular boundary of annotated fig. 5A above; the radius of curvature is defined as gradual curve from main flow inlet outer boundary to outer housing), such that the main flow inlet gradually evolves at the interface into the outer housing (according to Dictionary.com, “at” is defined as near; therefore, the main flow inlet gradually transitions near the interface into the outer housing, wherein the interface is a gradual curve, as designated in annotated figs. 5A above and 6 below; similar to applicant’s disclosure, not a sharp transition).
PNG
media_image2.png
375
410
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 6.
Tucker does not explicitly disclose wherein the radius of curvature is at least 0.5 mm in the plane perpendicular to the local tangent to the main flow inlet (corresponding to the radius of curvature of the bottom end side at the interface, designated in annotated fig. 5A of Tucker above).
First, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the radius of curvature to be at least 0.5 mm from the outer housing (0.5mm to infinity). Since such a modification would involve a mere change in size of the component, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. The claimed device would not perform differently than the prior art device, since the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device as the only difference is the recitation of relative dimensions of the radius of curvature from the outer housing to a portion of the main flow inlet conduit (see MPEP 2144.04-IV). Furthermore, the claimed dimensions are recognized as result effective variable, i.e. a variable in which achieves a recognized result as set forth above. The radius of curvature from the outer housing can vary depending on the design need to solve a problem. If the radius of curvature is larger, there may be a tighter curve from the inlet conduit pathway into the main flow inlet which may result in the larger, denser particles having too much inertia to follow the pathway and the dust collection is not as efficient; while if the radius of curvature is smaller, the size of the inlet conduit may be larger thereby, initially collecting more dirt and debris from the surface to be cleaned and resulting in an increased efficiency of dust collection as the dirt particles travel through a smaller curved pathway from the inlet conduit into the main flow inlet. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim (e.g. having the claimed structure as recited above) is disclosed by Tucker, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the radius of curvature from the outer housing to be between 0.5 mm and infinity. Further, in the instant application, page 12, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 2, Tucker discloses the cyclone unit as claimed in claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the radius of curvature is at least 1mm.
First, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the radius of curvature to be at least 1 mm from the outer housing (1 mm to infinity). Since such a modification would involve a mere change in size of the component, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. The claimed device would not perform differently than the prior art device, since the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device as the only difference is the recitation of relative dimensions of the radius of curvature from the outer housing to a portion of the main flow inlet conduit (see MPEP 2144.04-IV).
Furthermore, the claimed dimensions are recognized as result effective variable, i.e. a variable in which achieves a recognized result as set forth above. The radius of curvature from the outer housing can vary depending on the design need to solve a problem. If the radius of curvature is larger, there may be a tighter curve from the inlet conduit pathway into the main flow inlet which may result in the larger, denser particles having too much inertia to follow the pathway and the dust collection is not as efficient; while f the radius of curvature is smaller, the size of the inlet conduit may be larger thereby, initially collecting more dirt and debris from the surface to be cleaned and resulting in an increased efficiency of dust collection as the dirt particles travel through a smaller curved pathway from the inlet conduit into the main flow inlet. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim (e.g. having the claimed structure as recited above) is disclosed by Tucker, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the radius of curvature from the outer housing to be between 1 mm and infinity. Further, in the instant application, page 12, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Tucker discloses the cyclone unit as claimed in claim 1, comprising a main flow inlet conduit (defined as outer tube/pipe of item 20; figs. 1 and 2A-2B) which connects to the main flow inlet (inlet conduit 20 directly connects suctioned dirt, debris, etc. to main flow inlet, i.e. conduit conveys suctioned air into main flow inlet; similar to applicant’s disclosure), wherein the main flow inlet conduit has a first cross-sectional area (defined as cross-sectional area of circular inlet conduit 20 at bottommost end in view of figs. 2A-2B), and the area of the opening is a second, cross-sectional area (defined as cross-sectional area of opening on outer housing, i.e. point of entry into outer housing, in which main inlet directly connects to).
Tucker does not explicitly disclose wherein the second cross-sectional area is larger, e.g. wherein the second cross-sectional area is at least 1.1 times the first cross-sectional area, as required by claim 4.
First, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second cross sectional area to be at least 1.1 times the first cross sectional area (1.1 times to infinity). Since such a modification would involve a mere change in size of the component, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. The claimed device would not perform differently than the prior art device, since the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device as the only difference is the recitation of relative dimensions of the second cross sectional area relative to the first cross sectional area (see MPEP 2144.04-IV). Furthermore, the claimed dimensions are recognized as result effective variable, i.e. a variable in which achieves a recognized result as set forth above. The second cross sectional area can vary depending on the design need to solve a problem. If the second cross sectional area is smaller, the velocity of airflow may increase from the main inlet conduit to the opening thereby, improving separation; while if the second cross sectional area is larger, the velocity of airflow may decrease toward the opening (i.e. the further the air travels through the conduit and into the cyclone unit) however, the higher air velocity in the initial inlet of the conduit will lead to better cleaning on the surface to be cleaned. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim (e.g. having the claimed structure as recited above) is disclosed by Tucker, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the second cross sectional area to be larger, specifically, at least 1.1 times the first cross sectional area (between 1.1 times and infinity). Further, in the instant application, pages 11-12, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 5, Tucker discloses the cyclone unit as claimed in claim 4, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the second cross-sectional area is at least 1.2 times the first cross-sectional area.
First, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second cross sectional area to be at least 1.2 times the first cross sectional area (1.2 times to infinity). Since such a modification would involve a mere change in size of the component, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. The claimed device would not perform differently than the prior art device, since the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device as the only difference is the recitation of relative dimensions of the second cross sectional area relative to the first cross sectional area (see MPEP 2144.04-IV). Furthermore, the claimed dimensions are recognized as result effective variable, i.e. a variable in which achieves a recognized result as set forth above. The second cross sectional area can vary depending on the design need to solve a problem. If the second cross sectional area is smaller, the velocity of airflow may increase from the main inlet conduit to the opening thereby, improving separation; while if the second cross sectional area is larger, the velocity of airflow may decrease toward the opening (i.e. the further the air travels through the conduit and into the cyclone unit) however, the higher air velocity in the inlet of the conduit will lead to better cleaning on the surface to be cleaned. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim (e.g. having the claimed structure as recited above) is disclosed by Tucker, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the second cross sectional area to be at least 1.2 times the first cross sectional area (between 1.2 times and infinity). Further, in the instant application, pages 11-12, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 6, Tucker discloses the cyclone unit as claimed in claim 1, wherein the main flow inlet to the outer housing opening has an effective hydraulic inlet diameter (defined as diameter at the point in which main flow inlet and opening of outer housing connect; main flow inlet, which is within conduit 20, is a circular pathway) , and wherein the main flow inlet is spaced internally from the top end by a separation distance (designated annotated fig. 5A above).
Tucker does not explicitly disclose wherein the separation distance is at least 0.1 times the effective hydraulic inlet diameter. First, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the separation distance to be at least 0.1 times the distance (0.1 times the distance to infinity times the distance; e.g. if separation distance is equal to 1 inch, then range is between 0.1 inch to infinity). Since such a modification would involve a mere change in size of the component, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. The claimed device would not perform differently than the prior art device, since the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device as the only difference is the recitation of relative dimensions of the separation distance (see MPEP 2144.04-IV). Furthermore, the claimed dimensions are recognized as result effective variable, i.e. a variable in which achieves a recognized result as set forth above. The size of the separation distance can vary depending on the design need to solve a problem. If the separation distance is smaller (i.e. inlet is closer to the end surface), the dirty air will enter the cyclone unit at a higher position and may have a longer time traveling through the cyclone body portion to more efficiently separate dust and liquid; while if the separation distance is greater (i.e. inlet is further away from the end surface), the dirty air and liquid may not travel through as much of the cyclone portion of the body and will not separate as much dust and liquid. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim (e.g. having the claimed structure as recited above) is disclosed by Tucker, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the separation distance to be between 0.1 times the distance to infinity times the distance (e.g. if separation distance is equal to 1, then the range is between 0.1 to infinity). Further, in the instant application, pages 9-10, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 7, Tucker discloses the cyclone unit as claimed in claim 6, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the main flow inlet is spaced internally from the top end by a spacing between 0.1 and 2 times the effective hydraulic inlet diameter (Examiner notes a spacing is the same as the separation distance, i.e. defined by the same criteria; similar to applicant’s disclosure).
First, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spacing between the main flow inlet and the top end (i.e. the separation distance) to be between 0.1 and 2 times the effective hydraulic inlet diameter. Since such a modification would involve a mere change in size of the component, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. The claimed device would not perform differently than the prior art device, since the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device as the only difference is the recitation of relative dimensions of the spacing from the main flow inlet to the end surface (see MPEP 2144.04-IV). Furthermore, the claimed dimensions are recognized as result effective variable, i.e. a variable in which achieves a recognized result as set forth above. The distance of the spacing can vary depending on the design need to solve a problem. If the spacing is smaller (i.e. inlet is closer to the second end), the dirty air will enter the cyclone unit at a higher position and may have a longer time traveling through the cyclone body portion to more efficiently separate dust and liquid; while if the spacing is greater (i.e. inlet is further away from the top end), the dirty air and liquid may not travel through as much of the cyclone portion of the body and will not separate as much dust and liquid. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim (e.g. having the claimed structure as recited above) is disclosed by Tucker, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the spacing to between 0.1 and 2 times the effective hydraulic inlet diameter. Further, in the instant application, pages 9-10, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 8, Tucker discloses the cyclone unit as claimed in claim 6, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the main flow inlet is spaced internally below the top by the separation distance between 5mm and 50 mm.
First, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the separation distance to be between 5mm and 50mm. Since such a modification would involve a mere change in size of the component, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. The claimed device would not perform differently than the prior art device, since the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device as the only difference is the recitation of relative dimensions of the separation distance (see MPEP 2144.04-IV). Furthermore, the claimed dimensions are recognized as result effective variable, i.e. a variable in which achieves a recognized result as set forth above. The distance of the spacing can vary depending on the design need to solve a problem. If the spacing is smaller (closer to 5mm), the dirty air will enter the cyclone unit at a higher position and may have a longer time traveling through the cyclone body portion to more efficiently separate dust and liquid; while if the spacing is greater (closer to 50mm), the dirty air and liquid may not travel through as much of the cyclone portion of the body and will not separate as much dust and liquid. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim (e.g. having the claimed structure as recited above) is disclosed by Tucker, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the separation distance to be between 5mm and 50mm. Further, in the instant application, pages 9-10, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 9, Tucker discloses the cyclone unit as claimed in claim 1, comprising a main flow inlet conduit (defined as outer pipe/tube of item 20; figs. 1 and 2A-2B) which connects to the main flow inlet (inlet conduit 20 directly connects suctioned dirt, debris, etc. to main flow inlet, i.e. conduit conveys suctioned air into main flow inlet; similar to applicant’s disclosure ); and which extends perpendicularly to the cyclone unit (via L-shaped conduit pathway; col. 6, ll. 7-13) with a tangential component (portion of conduit 20 extends tangentially, i.e. peripherally, to the cyclone unit in a left-right direction in view of annotated fig. 2B below as the conduit is on the outer portion of the outer housing) and a radially inward component (portion of conduit 20 includes radially inward component to enter into internal volume of cyclone unit, i.e. into the page in view of fig. 2B).
PNG
media_image3.png
494
358
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2B.
Regarding claim 10, Tucker discloses the cyclone unit as claimed in claim 1, comprising a main flow inlet conduit (defined as outer pipe/tube of item 20; figs. 1 and 2A-2B) which connects to the main flow inlet (inlet conduit 20 directly connects suctioned dirt, debris, etc. to main flow inlet, i.e. conduit conveys suctioned air into main flow inlet; similar to applicant’s disclosure), and which extends in a direction offset from a perpendicular to the cyclone axis of rotation and facing towards the top end (offset direction, perpendicular to the cyclone axis of rotation, and top end are designated in second annotated fig. 5A below; main flow inlet conduit faces towards top end as air travels from bottommost end of item 20 towards top end to enter the main flow inlet and then the cyclone unit at the upper portion of the outer housing).
PNG
media_image4.png
644
535
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Second Annotated Fig. 5A.
Regarding claim 11, Tucker discloses the cyclone unit as claimed in claim 10, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the main inlet conduit extends in the direction offset by 0 to 30 degrees.
First, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the direction offset from the perpendicular of the cyclone axis of rotation to be between 0 and 30 degrees. Since such a modification would involve a mere change in size of the component, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. The claimed device would not perform differently than the prior art device, since the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device as the only difference is the recitation of relative dimensions of the degree in which the main flow inlet conduit is offset from the perpendicular of the cyclone axis of rotation (see MPEP 2144.04-IV). Furthermore, the claimed dimensions are recognized as result effective variable, i.e. a variable in which achieves a recognized result as set forth above. The offset distance from the perpendicular of the cyclone of rotation can vary depending on the design need to solve a problem. If the offset distance is smaller (closer to 0 degrees), the main flow inlet conduit will extend perpendicular to the outer housing and the liquid and particles moving through the dirty air will enter the cyclone unit perpendicular to the cyclone axis of rotation to create the cyclone flow thereby, requiring more initial suction force to pull the liquid and particles through the inlet conduit; while if the offset distance is greater (closer to 30 degrees), the main flow inlet conduit may be angled upwardly with respect to the outer housing and ensures the contaminated air drawn in from the main flow conduit forms an upward swirling airflow within the cyclone unit, allowing the contaminated air to quickly follow the centrifugal, i.e. cyclonic, pathway within the unit and separate the dirt particles more efficiently. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim (e.g. having the claimed structure as recited above) is disclosed by Tucker, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the distance offset from the perpendicular of the cyclone of rotation to be between 0 and 90 degrees. Further, in the instant application, page 11, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 12, Tucker discloses the cyclone unit as claimed in claim 1, comprising an outlet conduit (item 16; figs 2A-2B and 5A) which substantially extends from the top end into a central region of the outer housing (fig. 5A), and the main flow outlet is at an end of the outlet conduit (as designated in first annotated fig. 5A above, the main flow outlet is at a bottom end of the conduit in view of fig. 5A in order for the filtered air to exit the cyclone unit).
Regarding claim 13, Tucker discloses the cyclone unit as claimed in claim 1, wherein the main flow outlet extends parallel to the cyclone axis of rotation (portion of main flow outlet extends in a parallel direction to cyclone axis of rotation in order for filtered air to pass through main flow outlet; similar to applicant’s disclosure).
Regarding claim 14, Tucker discloses the cyclone unit as claimed in claim 1, wherein at least a portion of the outer housing is cylindrical around the cyclone axis of rotation (fig. 1; at least a portion of outer housing, i.e. item 22, is cylindrical and surrounds cyclone axis of rotation).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tucker (US Patent No. 11,358,456), from cited references in Final Rejection filed on 11/25/2024 in view of Oh (US 2015/0283979).
Regarding claim 15, Tucker discloses the cyclone unit as claimed in claim 1 is utilized for vacuum technologies (Abstract and col. 1, ll. 15-17), Tucker does not explicitly disclose the details of the vacuum, such as comprising a dirt inlet, and a motor and fan for delivering suction to the dirt inlet.
However, Oh teaches a wet vacuum cleaner (item 10; fig. 1) comprising a dirt inlet (through item 31; fig. 1), a motor and fan (item 40; fig. 1) for delivering suction to the dirt inlet (pp. [0030]), and a cyclone unit (item 20; fig. 1; corresponding to the cyclone unit in Tucker) for separating particles from a flow generated by the suction (pp. [0025]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cyclone unit, as disclosed in Tucker, to include a motor and fan assembly within the main body of a vacuum cleaner, as taught in Oh, since it is old and well known in the art to utilize a motor and fan in vacuum cleaners to achieve the predictable result of creating a working air flow to suck up dirt, debris, particles, and more .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues, “Tucker [the art of record] describes that the opening formed by the air intake channel with the main body has a sharp transition and has no gradual transition to direct into the main body. Instead, the air inlet forms a gradual transition with the air intake channel, and the air intake channel forms a sharp transition with the main body at the opening to direct air into the main body” and further, argues “Tucker fails to teach or suggest that an interface between the air intake channel (equated to the claimed ‘main flow inlet’) and the main body (equated to the claimed ‘outer housing ’) has a radius of curvature in a plane perpendicular to a local tangent to the air inlet” (on p. 5-6 of Remarks). However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, the applicant does not recite a col., page, and/or figure in which Tucker appears to disclose a sharp transition of the air intake channel. As explicitly shown in annotated figures above, Tucker discloses a gradual transition from the conduit into the outer housing (fig. 5A above and below) which is analogous to the gradual transition and interface (defined as reference number 80 in applicant’s disclosure) between the inlet and outer housing (reference number 32 in instant disclosure) in fig. 9 of instant disclosure. Both Tucker fig. 5A and instant disclosure fig. 9 are included below.
Second, according to Dictionary.com, “interface” is defined as a point where two systems meet and interact; therefore, when viewed from a cross-sectional view taken along lines V-V in fig. 2A of Tucker, the point in which the main flow inlet and outer housing, i.e. an outer wall of the outer housing, meet is designated within bolded circular boundary of annotated fig. 5A below and defines a gradual curve, i.e. radius of curvature, from the main flow inlet to the outer housing, specifically, outer side wall of outer housing. Additionally, the newly amended recitations require “the main flow inlet gradually evolves at the interface into the outer housing.” As stated in rejection above, “at” is defined by Diciontary.com as near and therefore, the main flow inlet gradually transitions along the curve near the interface into the housing. Further, the Examiner notes the main flow inlet in Tucker is defined as the upper passageway of conduit 20 and is not limited to a specific 2-D opening of the pathway (e.g. inlet is defined as an elongated section of the passageway within item 20). Therefore, a (left) boundary of the main flow inlet (in view of annotated fig. 5A below) interfaces, i.e. meets, an outer side wall of the outer housing to define a radius of curvature.
PNG
media_image5.png
330
301
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
469
345
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Lastly, the applicant argues “Tucker describes separating air and debris and fails to solve the problem that the Application is addressing to improve liquid separation efficiency when separating water (and debris) from a flow by maintaining a radius of curvature at the interface” (p. 7 of Remarks). However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim requires “a cyclone unit for separating liquid particles from a flow through the cyclone unit” within the preamble. This recitation has not been given patentable weight because it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim following the claim is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation is of no significance to claim constructure. Please refer to MPEP 2111.02.II. However, the Examiner notes that in the instant case, the cyclone unit of Tucker is capable of suctioning moisture, liquid, and particles through the main flow conduit and main flow inlet and thereby, separating the liquid from the airflow. Therefore, the art of record remains relevant for the amended claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pondelick (US 2010/0083832) discloses a cyclone unit for a vacuum comprising a main flow inlet and a gradual transition between the main flow inlet and an outer housing of the cyclone unit.
Soto (US Patent No. 8,104,622) discloses a cyclone unit for a vacuum comprising a main flow inlet gradually evolving into the internal side of the outer housing of the cyclone unit.
Seitz (US Patent No. 12,446,745) discloses a cyclonic unit for separating liquid and waste particles, wherein the cyclonic unit comprises a main flow inlet gradually transitioning into an outer housing of the cyclone unit.
Akhras (US Patent No. 8,337,603) discloses a cyclone unit for gas-liquid mixtures wherein the cyclone unit comprises a main flow inlet, a main flow outlet, and the main flow inlet extends around an outer housing of the cyclone unit and gradually evolves into the outer housing at an opening of the outer housing.
Gallaer (US Patent No. 3,745,752) discloses a cyclone unit comprising a curved main flow inlet gradually evolving into the outer housing of the cyclone unit.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIDNEY D FULL whose telephone number is (571)272-6996. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00a.m.-2:30p.m..
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Keller can be reached on (571)272-8548. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SIDNEY D FULL/Examiner, Art Unit 3723