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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 3 “facing away from one” in line 3 of the claim should read “facing away from one another”. It appears as though a transcription error occurred between the previous claim submission and the current claim submission.
In Claim 18, “a rod receptacle configured to releasably to…” in line 10 of the claim should read “a rod receptacle configured to releasably connect to…”. Although this is a new independent claim, the assumption of the correct word comes from the fact that this section of the claim is a direct copy of claim 1 except the missing word.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frankel (US Patent No. 10184259 B2) hereinafter Frankel in view of Dufilho et al (US Patent Application No. 20200080331 A1) hereinafter Dufilho.
Regarding Claim 1, Frankel teaches an underwater cleaner (i.e., a hand-guided swimming pool vacuum cleaner comprising; Fig. 1, #1) comprising a housing (i.e., a main body having a housing; Fig. 1, #2) with an electric motor (Fig. 4, #4) and an impellor (i.e., with an impeller configured and arranged to be driven by an electric motor; Fig. 4, #3), the housing having an inlet opening (Fig. 4, #23) and an outlet opening (Fig. 4, #22; Abstract) where the inlet opening is located on the bottom side of the cleaner (i.e., an inlet opening in a bottom region of the housing; Col. 3, Line 66 to Col. 4, Line 3) and the outlet is clearly shown to be on a side of the housing and transverse to the inlet opening (i.e., and an outlet opening on an outlet side of the housing; wherein the outlet side has a lateral outlet opening with a cross-sectional area transverse to the inlet opening; Fig. 4), the outlet opening having a dirt filter (i.e., a collecting container receptacle; Fig. 4, #15) attached to the outlet opening (i.e., configured to accommodate a collecting container is arranged in a region of the outlet opening; Col. 3, Lines 60-65), and a rod receiver (i.e., a rod receptacle; Fig. 4, #12) located above the outlet (Fig. 4) that connects to a rod and can be pivotably arranged with respect to the housing (i.e., configured to releasably connect to a guide rod is arranged in a region of the outlet side; Col. 3, Lines 45-52).
PNG
media_image1.png
430
335
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Frankel does not teach a guide fork pivotably connected to the housing about a pivot axis, where the rod receptacle is arranged on the guide fork, and wherein - as viewed in plan view - the pivot axis is arranged at a distance from a center of mass of the main body, wherein the center of mass is arranged between the pivot axis and the outlet opening.
However, Dufilho teaches a pole attachment fork (i.e., a guide fork pivotably connected to the housing; Fig. 1, #320) with a pivot axis (i.e., about a pivot axis; Fig. 1, #336) that has an attachable pole (i.e., where the rod receptacle is arranged on the guide fork; Fig. 4, #310; Paragraph 0006) and the fork is taught as a standard attachment mechanism that is interchangeable with other attachment mechanisms (Paragraph 0011). Dufilho further teaches that the pivot height of the pivot axis may be between 1 and 9 inches (Paragraph 0012) and that the center of gravity of the pump and motor unit (Fig. 1, #220) has a height from the surface that is less than 7 inches (i.e., wherein - as viewed in plan view - the pivot axis is arranged at a distance from a center of mass of the main body, wherein the center of mass is arranged between the pivot axis and the outlet opening; Paragraph 0016), which constitutes the heaviest pieces of the cleaner and so would approximate the center of gravity of the entire device.
Dufilho is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a pool cleaner related to underwater vacuum cleaning (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the rod receiver as taught by Frankel to be a guide fork as taught by Dufilho because the guide fork is an art recognized alternative method of connecting the guide rod with both Frankel and Dufilho teaching that the rod receptacle/attachment fork may be interchanged.
Frankel in view of Dufilho does not teach the explicit range wherein - as viewed in plan view - the pivot axis is arranged at a distance from a center of mass of the main body, wherein the center of mass is arranged between the pivot axis and the outlet opening. However, a prima facie case of obviousness exists for claimed ranges that overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976))(See MPEP 2144.05(I)). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the center of mass location that corresponds to the claimed range while experimenting with the range made obvious by Frankel in view of Dufilho.
Regarding Claim 11, Frankel in view of Dufilho makes obvious the swimming pool vacuum cleaner of claim 1. Frankel further teaches a rod receiver (i.e., a rod receptacle; Fig. 4, #12) located above the outlet (i.e., characterized in that the rod receptacle is arranged operationally in the region of the outlet side of the housing; Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 12, Frankel in view of Dufilho makes obvious the swimming pool vacuum cleaner of claim 1. Dufilho further teaches the main body (Fig. 2, #103) may be a single piece plastic injection molded component (i.e., the guide fork and/or the housing are made of plastic; Paragraph 0008).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the underwater cleaner as made obvious by Frankel in view of Dufilho to be made of plastic as taught by Dufilho because plastic is an art recognized alternative for the housing body material.
Claims 2-3, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frankel in view of Dufilho as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Monroe (US Patent No. 3716883 A) hereinafter Monroe and Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frankel in view of Dufilho in view of Monroe.
Regarding Claim 2, Frankel in view of Dufilho makes obvious the swimming pool vacuum cleaner of claim 1. Dufilho further teaches that the main body (Fig. 2, #103) is attached to the pole attachment fork by inserting the pole attachment pins (Fig. 4, #330) through the pole attachment fork and into the pole attachment holes (Fig. 4, #333) located on opposite sides of said main body (i.e., characterized in that the housing and the guide fork are pivotably connected to one another spaced apart from one another; Fig. 4; Paragraph 0011).
Frankel in view of Dufilho does not teach two pivot bearings wherein each of the two pivot bearings includes a bearing journal and a bearing bore rotatably accommodating the bearing journal.
However, Monroe teaches inserting a brush (Fig. 5, #46) into a housing (Fig. 5, #48) where a journal (Fig. 5, #50) is passed through the center of a spring (Fig. 5, #54) and into a bearing (Fig. 1, #20), where the brush is secured in place via the spring with a snug fit (Col. 5, Lines 4-40).
Monroe is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to fluid driven implements for cleaning swimming pools (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify pins for attaching the pole attachment fork made obvious by Frankel in view of Dufilho with the journal, bearing, and spring taught by Monroe because these would secure the handle assembly in place with a snug fit.
Regarding Claim 3, Frankel in view of Dufilho in view of Monroe makes obvious the swimming pool vacuum cleaner of claim 2. Dufilho further teaches that the pole attachment hole (Fig. 4, #333) has a pole attachment pin (Fig. 4, #330) located on the side of the main body (i.e., arranged on side walls of the housing; Fig. 2, #103) where the pole attachment holes face away from each other (i.e., facing away from one another; Fig. 4, #333; Paragraphs 0011 and 0012) because the main body would be allowed to freely rotate within the pole attachment fork (Fig. 4, #320; Paragraph 0011).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the location of the pole attachment fork connection points made obvious by Frankel in view of Dufilho in view of Monroe with the location taught by Dufilho because the location would allow the main body to freely rotate within the pole attachment fork.
Regarding Claim 13, Frankel in view of Dufilho in view of Monroe makes obvious the swimming pool vacuum cleaner of claim 2. Dufilho further teaches that the pole attachment holes are located on the main body (Fig. 4).
Frankel in view of Dufilho in view of Monroe does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one bearing journal of the two pivot bearings is formed by the housing. Dufilho further teaches that the pole attachment holes are located on the main body (Fig. 4). According to the Court, the rearrangement of parts is held to be an obvious design choice (In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)) (See MPEP 2114.04(VI)(C). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the bearing journal and the handle mount as made obvious by Frankel in view of Dufilho in view of Monroe to be formed by the housing because the bore on the bracket would still receive the corresponding fastener for a secure connection to the main body of the vacuum.
Regarding Claim 14, Frankel in view of Dufilho in view of Monroe makes obvious the swimming pool vacuum cleaner of claim 3. Dufilho further teaches that the cylindrical flow path (Fig. 1, #156) is smaller than the distance between the pole attachment fork (Fig. 1, #320) prongs (i.e., wherein the distance between the two pivot bearings corresponds at least the diameter of the inlet opening; Fig. 1; Paragraph 0006).
Regarding Claim 18, Frankel teaches an underwater cleaner (i.e., a hand-guided swimming pool vacuum cleaner comprising; Fig. 1, #1) comprising a housing (i.e., a main body having a housing; Fig. 1, #2) with an electric motor (Fig. 4, #4) and an impellor (i.e., with an impeller configured and arranged to be driven by an electric motor; Fig. 4, #3), the housing having an inlet opening (Fig. 4, #23) and an outlet opening (Fig. 4, #22; Abstract) where the inlet opening is located on the bottom side of the cleaner (i.e., an inlet opening in a bottom region of the housing; Col. 3, Line 66 to Col. 4, Line 3) and the outlet is clearly shown to be on a side of the housing and transverse to the inlet opening (i.e., and an outlet opening on an outlet side of the housing; wherein the outlet side has a lateral outlet opening with a cross-sectional area transverse to the inlet opening; Fig. 4), the outlet opening having a dirt filter (i.e., a collecting container receptacle; Fig. 4, #15) attached to the outlet opening (i.e., configured to accommodate a collecting container is arranged in a region of the outlet opening; Col. 3, Lines 60-65), and a rod receiver (i.e., a rod receptacle; Fig. 4, #12) located above the outlet (Fig. 4) that connects to a rod and can be pivotably arranged with respect to the housing (i.e., configured to releasably connect to a guide rod is arranged in a region of the outlet side; Col. 3, Lines 45-52).
PNG
media_image1.png
430
335
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Frankel does not teach a guide fork pivotably connected to the housing about a pivot axis, where the rod receptacle is arranged on the guide fork, and wherein - as viewed in plan view - the pivot axis is arranged at a distance from a center of mass of the main body, wherein the center of mass is arranged between the pivot axis and the outlet opening.
However, Dufilho teaches a pole attachment fork (i.e., a guide fork pivotably connected to the housing; Fig. 1, #320) with a pivot axis (i.e., about a pivot axis; Fig. 1, #336) that has an attachable pole (i.e., where the rod receptacle is arranged on the guide fork; Fig. 4, #310; Paragraph 0006) and the fork is taught as a standard attachment mechanism that is interchangeable with other attachment mechanisms (Paragraph 0011). Dufilho further teaches that the pivot height of the pivot axis may be between 1 and 9 inches (Paragraph 0012) and that the center of gravity of the pump and motor unit (Fig. 1, #220) has a height from the surface that is less than 7 inches (i.e., wherein - as viewed in plan view - the pivot axis is arranged at a distance from a center of mass of the main body, wherein the center of mass is arranged between the pivot axis and the outlet opening; Paragraph 0016), which constitutes the heaviest pieces of the cleaner and so would approximate the center of gravity of the entire device. Dufilho further teaches that the main body (Fig. 2, #103) is attached to the pole attachment fork by inserting the pole attachment pins (Fig. 4, #330) through the pole attachment fork and into the pole attachment holes (Fig. 4, #333) located on opposite sides of said main body (i.e., characterized in that the housing and the guide fork are pivotably connected to one another spaced apart from one another; Fig. 4; Paragraph 0011). Dufilho further teaches that the pole attachment hole (Fig. 4, #333) has a pole attachment pin (Fig. 4, #330) located on the side of the main body (i.e., arranged on side walls of the housing; Fig. 2, #103) where the pole attachment holes face away from each other (i.e., facing away from one another; Fig. 4, #333; Paragraphs 0011 and 0012) because the main body would be allowed to freely rotate within the pole attachment fork (Fig. 4, #320; Paragraph 0011). Dufilho further teaches that the cylindrical flow path (Fig. 1, #156) is smaller than the distance between the pole attachment fork (Fig. 1, #320) prongs (i.e., wherein the distance between the two pivot bearings corresponds at least the diameter of the inlet opening; Fig. 1; Paragraph 0006).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the rod receiver as taught by Frankel to be a guide fork as taught by Dufilho because the guide fork is an art recognized alternative method of connecting the guide rod with both Frankel and Dufilho teaching that the rod receptacle/attachment fork may be interchanged and to modify the location of the pole attachment fork connection points as taught by Frankel with the location taught by Dufilho because the location would allow the main body to freely rotate within the pole attachment fork.
Frankel in view of Dufilho does not teach two pivot bearings wherein each of the two pivot bearings includes a bearing journal and a bearing bore rotatably accommodating the bearing journal.
However, Monroe teaches inserting a brush (Fig. 5, #46) into a housing (Fig. 5, #48) where a journal (Fig. 5, #50) is passed through the center of a spring (Fig. 5, #54) and into a bearing (Fig. 1, #20), where the brush is secured in place via the spring with a snug fit (Col. 5, Lines 4-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify pins for attaching the pole attachment fork made obvious by Frankel in view of Dufilho with the journal, bearing, and spring taught by Monroe because these would secure the handle assembly in place with a snug fit.
Frankel in view of Dufilho in view of Monroe does not teach the explicit range wherein - as viewed in plan view - the pivot axis is arranged at a distance from a center of mass of the main body, wherein the center of mass is arranged between the pivot axis and the outlet opening. However, a prima facie case of obviousness exists for claimed ranges that overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976))(See MPEP 2144.05(I)). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the center of mass location that corresponds to the claimed range while experimenting with the range made obvious by Frankel in view of Dufilho in view of Monroe.
Claims 4-6, 8-10, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frankel in view of Dufilho as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Erlich et al (US Patent Application No. 20190032354 A1) hereinafter Erlich.
Regarding Claim 4, Frankel in view of Dufilho makes obvious the swimming pool vacuum cleaner of claim 1. Frankel in view of Dufilho does not teach that the underwater cleaner is characterized in that the guide fork has a defined pivoting range, wherein at least one end position of the pivoting range is defined by at least one stop for a corresponding projection.
However, Erlich teaches that the width of the U-shaped bracket (Fig. 4, # 72) corresponds to the width of the battery housing (Fig. 4, #56) to permit the handle assembly (Fig. 4, #70) to clear the battery housing while being rotated and that the handle assembly is preferably able to rotate approximately 90° (i.e., the guide fork has a defined pivoting range), and that recesses (Fig. 4, #53) can be provided in the outwardly extending flange (i.e., wherein at least one end position of the pivoting range is defined by at least one stop for a corresponding projection; Fig. 4, #50) to increase the degrees of rotational movement (Paragraph 0094) for the purpose of maneuverability of the cleaner by the operator (Paragraph 0093).
Erlich is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to an electric-powered submersible vacuum cleaner (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the underwater cleaner made obvious by Frankel in view of Dufilho with the stops made obvious by Erlich because the stops would allow for greater maneuverability of the cleaner by the operator.
Regarding Claim 5, Frankel in view of Dufilho in view of Erlich makes obvious the swimming pool vacuum cleaner of claim 4. Erlich further teaches that the width of the U-shaped bracket (i.e., the corresponding projection is formed by the guide fork; Fig. 4, # 72) corresponds to the width of the battery housing (Fig. 4, #56) to permit the handle assembly (Fig. 4, #70) to clear the battery housing while being rotated and that the handle assembly is preferably able to rotate approximately 90°, and that recesses (Fig. 4, #53) can be provided in the outwardly extending flange (i.e., the at least one stop is formed by the housing; Fig. 4, #50) to increase the degrees of rotational movement (Paragraph 0094).
Regarding Claim 6, Frankel in view of Dufilho in view of Erlich makes obvious the swimming pool vacuum cleaner of claim 4. Erlich further teaches that the extending flange (Fig. 39, #50) is not recessed (i.e., the corresponding projection is formed by the housing; Fig. 39; Paragraphs 0066-0067). However, Frankel in view of Dufilho in view of Erlich does not explicitly teach that the at least one stop is formed by the guide fork. Erlich does teach that recesses may be included on the extending flange to increase the degree of rotational movement of the handle assembly (Paragraph 0094), though interchanging the projection and recess is not taught. According to the Court, the rearrangement of parts is held to be an obvious design choice (In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)) (See MPEP 2114.04(VI)(C). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the recess on the extending flange and the projection on the handle assembly as made obvious by Frankel in view of Dufilho in view of Erlich to be located on opposite positions because the new positions would still allow for the increased degree of rotational movement.
Regarding Claim 8, Frankel in view of Dufilho in view of Erlich makes obvious the swimming pool vacuum cleaner of claim 4. Erlich further teaches the handle assembly is preferably able to rotate approximately 90° (i.e., the pivoting range is about 60° to 120° ± 10°; Paragraph 0094).
Regarding Claim 9, Frankel in view of Dufilho makes obvious the swimming pool vacuum cleaner of claim 1. Frankel in view of Dufilho do not teach wherein the rod receptacle includes a cylindrical pin configured and arranged for accommodating the guide rod, and wherein the guide rod is tubular.
However, Erlich teaches that a snap clip (Fig. 6, #80) within the channel (Fig. 6, #75) of the elongated shaft (i.e., the rod receptacle; Fig. 6, #74) that has retention pins (i.e., a cylindrical pin; Fig. 6, #83) such that they engage with outer bores (Fig. 6, #77) of the extension pole (i.e., configured and arranged for accommodating the guide rod; Fig. 6, #76; Paragraph 0097), and that the extension pole is tubular (i.e., wherein the guide rod is tubular; Paragraph 0096) for the purpose of allowing the operator to easily attach or release the extension pole (Paragraph 0097).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the rod receptacle made obvious by Frankel in view of Dufilho with the snap clip fastener as taught by Erlich because the snap clip fastener would allow the operator to easily attach or release the extension pole.
Regarding Claim 10, Frankel in view of Dufilho makes obvious the swimming pool vacuum cleaner of claim 1. Frankel in view of Dufilho do not teach the rod receptacle has at least one recess extending transversely to a longitudinal axis of the rod receptacle, the at least one recess configured and arranged for accommodating an elastic latching element.
However, Erlich teaches that the elongated shaft (i.e., the rod receptacle; Fig. 6, #74) has bore holes (i.e., has at least one recess extending transversely to a longitudinal axis of the rod receptacle) that are aligned with the outer bore holes (Fig. 6, #77) of the extension pole (Fig. 6, #76) and that the retention pins (i.e., a cylindrical pin; Fig. 6, #83) engage with the bore holes via a V-shaped spring (i.e. an elastic latching element; Fig. 6, #82) such that the pins may be depressed to remove the extension pole (i.e., configured and arranged for accommodating an elastic latching element) for the purpose of allowing the operator to easily attach or release the extension pole (Paragraph 0097).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the rod receptacle made obvious by Frankel in view of Dufilho with the snap clip fastener as taught by Erlich because the snap clip fastener would allow the operator to easily attach or release the extension pole.
Regarding Claim 15, Frankel in view of Dufilho in view of Erlich makes obvious the swimming pool vacuum cleaner of claim 5. Frankel in view of Dufilho in view of Erlich does not teach that the corresponding projection is pin-like. However, Erlich teaches that the recesses increase the degrees of rotational movement of the handle assembly (Paragraph 0094) and Fig. 4 shows that the recesses (Fig. 4, #53) match in shape with the prongs of the U-shaped bracket (Fig. 4, #72). The court has held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966))(See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the projection on prongs of the U-shaped bracket as made obvious by Frankel in view of Dufilho in view of Erlich to be in a pin-like shape to match the recesses as it would still allow for increased degrees of rotational movement of the handle assembly.
Regarding Claim 16, Frankel in view of Dufilho in view of Erlich makes obvious the swimming pool vacuum cleaner of claim 6. Frankel in view of Dufilho in view of Erlich does not teach that the corresponding projection is pin-like. However, Erlich teaches that the recesses increase the degrees of rotational movement of the handle assembly (Paragraph 0094) and Fig. 4 shows that the recesses (Fig. 4, #53) match in shape with the prongs of the U-shaped bracket (Fig. 4, #72). The court has held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966))(See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the projection on the extending flange as made obvious by Frankel in view of Dufilho in view of Erlich to be in a pin-like shape to match recesses on prongs of the U-shaped bracket as it would still allow for increased degrees of rotational movement of the handle assembly.
Regarding Claim 17, Frankel in view of Dufilho in view of Erlich makes obvious the swimming pool vacuum cleaner of claim 4. Erlich further teaches the handle assembly is preferable able to rotate approximately 90° (i.e., the pivoting range is about 90° ± 10°; Paragraph 0094).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frankel in view of Dufilho in view of Erlich as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Erlich et al (US Patent Application No. 20130133144 A1) hereinafter Erlich (2013).
Regarding Claim 7, Frankel in view of Dufilho in view of Erlich makes obvious the swimming pool vacuum cleaner of claim 4. Frankel in view of Dufilho in view of Erlich do not teach the at least one stop is formed by a guide rail, wherein the corresponding projection is configured and arranged to be guided in or on the guide rail.
However, Erlich (2013) teaches an upright flange guide (Fig. 7, #58) that helps lock an end of an axle (Fig. 7, #20) in place while ensuring that the axle locking-bar assembly (Fig. 6, #50) never completely exits the receiving slot (Fig. 7, #34) for the purpose protecting the upright flange guide from twisting and bending or otherwise being damaged from debris during operation (i.e., a stop is formed by a guide rail wherein the corresponding projection is configured and arranged to be guided in or on the guide rail; Paragraphs 0065-0067).
Erlich (2013) is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a pool cleaner (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the recess made obvious by Frankel in view of Dufilho in view of Erlich to be a guide rail as taught by Erlich (2013) because the guide rail would prevent the stop and guide rail from being damaged during operation.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 05/13/2025 has been entered.
In view of the amendment to the claims, the addition of new claim 18 has been acknowledged.
In view of the amendment to the specification, the objection to the specification has been withdrawn.
In view of the arguments, the basis of the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection has been changed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 05/13/2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues, regarding claim 1, that the combination of Erlich in view of Erlich (2013) does not teach a clear motivation to for the limitation of “wherein the outlet side has a lateral outlet opening with a cross-sectional area transverse to the inlet opening” (Arguments filed 05/13/2025, Page 7 to Page 9, Paragraph 1).
Applicant argues, regarding claim 1, that the combination of Erlich in view of Erlich (2013) does not teach the correct positioning of the center of mass of the apparatus (Arguments filed 05/13/2025, Page 9, Paragraph 2 to Page 10, Paragraph 2).
Applicant argues, regarding claims 2-3, 12, and 14 and the remaining dependent claims, that Monroe and Dufilho do not cure the deficiencies listed above regarding claim 1 and thus the claims are allowable (Arguments filed 05/13/2025, Page 10, Paragraph 3 to Page 12).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 for the limitation “wherein the outlet side has a lateral outlet opening with a cross-sectional area transverse to the inlet opening” and the positioning of the center of mass have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that the dependent claims are allowable because claim 1 is allowable, claim 1 is not allowable and so the dependent claims are not allowable.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. All other arguments have been indirectly addressed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM ADRIEN GERMAIN whose telephone number is (703)756-5499. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30-4:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vickie Kim can be reached at (571)272-0579. 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.
/A.A.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1777
/Ryan B Huang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777