DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/6/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 4-5 and 48 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 4, the recitation of “along the center axis of the fine filter part of the fine filter part” should read --along the center axis of the fine filter part-- to make the record clear.
Regarding claim 5, the recitation of “along the extension of the fine filter part” should read --along the length along the center axis of the fine filter part-- to match the changes made to amended claim 4.
Regarding claim 48, the recitation of “an air inlet of a dust extractor” should read --an air inlet of the dust extractor-- because a dust extractor has already been claimed in claim 48.
Regarding claim 48, the recitation of “the dust cyclone container” should read --a dust cyclone container-- because a dust cyclone container has not yet been claimed and therefore lacks antecedent basis
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner notes that each iteration of “at least one”, with the exception of “at least one battery compartment” recited in claim 34, is being interpreted by examiner to mean --one-- as each iteration of “at least one” throughout the claims (specifically claims 1, 27, 32-36, and 48-49) refers to a piece of structure which Applicant only has drawing support for a single piece of structure. If Applicant is intending for “at least one” to essentially be “one or more”, then examiner finds that each piece of structure claimed after each iteration of “at least one” would be objected to as the drawings supplied by Applicant do not support more than a single piece of structure.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“Dust separating part” in claim 48, because (A) the term “part” is a generic placeholder, see above; (B) “dust separating” designates a function performed by the part, and (C) no additional structure is specified, to support the claimed function of “dust separating” – in effect the language is equivalent to a predetermined means for dust separating. Examiner is interpreting “dust separating part” to be at least one cyclone, a coarse filter part, or an equivalent structure based on at least page 2 lines 13-15 of Applicant’s specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” or generic placeholder but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“dust separating part” in claims 1-2, 26, and 49.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 1-2, 4-5, 7, 9, 21, 23-27, 29, and 31-38 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 1 recites “the region of the mounting position is within outer ends of the bottom of the dust cyclone container filter part”. It is unclear to examiner if this “filter part” is referring to the coarse filter part, the fine filter part, another filter part entirely, or if the addition of “filter part” is a typographical error. For the sake of compact prosecution and for use in this action, examiner is interpreting “the region of the mounting position is within outer ends of the bottom of the dust cyclone container filter part” to be --the region of the mounting position is within outer ends of the bottom of the dust cyclone container--.
Claim 31 recites “a bottom plane”, but “a bottom plane” has already been recited in claim 1. Is this the same plane as the plane recited in claim 1 or is it a different plane? For the sake of compact prosecution and for use in this action, examiner is interpreting “a bottom plane” to be --the bottom plane--.
Claims 2, 4-5, 7, 9, 21, 23-27, 29, and 32-38 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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 1-2, 4-5, 7, 9, 21, 23, 26-27, 29, 31, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrad (US20080172992) in view of Son et al. (US10575690), hereinafter Son, and in further view of Sjoberg et al. (US20050125943), hereinafter Sjoberg.
Regarding claim 1, Conrad discloses a dust extractor comprising
- a dust cyclone container (Fig. 4b element 12, excluding element 22) with an air inlet (Fig. 1a element 38) for connecting to a hose (0055, where a flexible hose corresponds to a hose), the dust cyclone container having a contaminated portion downstream the air inlet (Fig. 4b, the portion of the cyclone container (12) which is external to element 55 correspond to a contaminated portion) and a clean portion downstream the contaminated portion (Fig. 4b, the portion of the cyclone container (12) which is surrounded by element 55 and thereby internal to element 55 corresponds to a clean portion), and a dust separating part (Fig. 4b element 55) is adapted to be provided between the contaminated portion and the clean portion (Fig. 4b), the dust separating part comprising at least one cyclone and/or a coarse filter part (0058, where the dust separating part (55) is a coarse filter part (e.g. a pre-filter part)), wherein the contaminated portion of the dust cyclone container is adapted to be provided with a dust container (Fig. 4b, 0055, where a dirt collection chamber corresponds to a dust container), for collecting dust (0055-0056),
- a fine filter section (Fig. 4b element 14, excluding element 30) arranged adjacent to the dust cyclone container (Fig. 4b) and having a contaminated section (Fig. 4b, the section of the fine filter section (14) which is directly above element 65 corresponds to a contaminated section) and a clean section downstream the contaminated section (Fig. 4b, the section downstream of element 71 corresponds to a clean section), and a fine filter part (Fig. 4b element 71) is adapted to be provided between the contaminated section and the clean section (Fig. 4b),
- a mobility section (Fig. 1a element 84 and Fig. 4b elements 22 and 30, 0068) comprising wheels (Fig. 1a element 84, 0068, where one or more wheels corresponds to wheels) and a frame (Fig. 4b elements 22 and 30),
- an air channel (Fig. 4b element 58), between the clean portion of the dust cyclone container and the contaminated section of the fine filter part (Fig. 4b, where a contaminated side of the fine filter part is a subset of the contaminated section of the fine filter part which encompasses the entirety of the contaminated section of the fine filter part),
- a fan motor (Fig. 4b element 42), mounted to the fine filter section (Fig. 4b), for drawing air from the air inlet through the dust separating part, through the air channel and through the fine filter part, and allowing air to exit to the ambient after having passed the fine filter part (0005, where the suction motor is capable of drawing air from the air inlet through the dust separating part, air channel, and the fine filter part, and allowing air to exit to ambient),
wherein the dust cyclone container has a center axis along its longitudinal extension (see annotated Fig. 4b below), and the fine filter part is provided at a radial distance from the dust cyclone container (Fig. 4b, where the thickness of sidewall (16) and the thickness of sidewall (24) added together corresponds to a radial distance) along a plane perpendicular to the center axis of the dust cyclone container (see annotated Fig. 4b below), the plane coinciding with the dust cyclone container and a portion of the fine filter part (see annotated Fig. 4b below),
wherein the blower/fan motor is adapted to be powered (0069, where an electrical cord is used to power the fan motor), and
wherein a bottom of the dust cyclone container in a region of the mounting position for the dust container, lies in the bottom plane (see annotated Fig. 4b below, where the section of the dust cyclone container (12) which is at and below the plane corresponds to a bottom of the dust cyclone container and where the region of the mounting position is a subset of the bottom of the dust cyclone container which encompasses the entirety of the bottom of the dust cyclone container), and
wherein the region of the mounting position is within outer ends of the bottom of the dust cyclone container (see annotated Fig. 4b below, where the region of the mounting position being a subset of the bottom of the dust cyclone container which encompasses the entirety of the bottom of the dust cyclone container means that the region of the mounting position is within outer ends of the bottom of the dust cyclone container).
Conrad fails to disclose the blower/fan motor is adapted to be powered at least partly by at least one onboard battery, wherein the at least one battery is arranged to be received in at least one battery slot provided in the fine filter section or in the mobility section, and the dust container comprises an elongated rolled-up or folded plastic tube, arranged underneath the dust cyclone container in use, that gradually is unrolled or unfolded when a bag of the dust container is to be changed, and wherein the battery slot is at least partly positioned on, or below, a bottom plane that runs perpendicular to the center axis of the dust cyclone container.
Son is also concerned with a dust extractor and teaches the blower/fan motor (Fig. 7 element 35) is adapted to be powered at least partly by at least one onboard battery (Fig. 7 element 38), wherein the at least one battery is arranged to be received in at least one battery slot (Fig. 17 element 334, 20:31-35) provided in the fine filter section or in the mobility section (Fig. 7, 8:47-51, "a space in which the battery unit 38 and the filter unit 39 are provided" corresponds to the fine filter section).
Pursuant of MPEP 2144.06-II, it has been held obvious to substitute equivalents for the same purpose. Conrad discloses the invention except that the power source is an electrical cord instead of at least one battery. Son shows that using at least one battery is an equivalent structure known in the art (e.g. both power sources supply power to a dust extractor). Therefore, because these two power source types were art-recognized equivalents at the time of the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to substitute at least one battery for an electrical cord.
Conrad, as modified, then yields the battery slot is at least partly positioned on, or below, a bottom plane that runs perpendicular to a center axis of the dust cyclone container (Conrad, see annotated Fig. 4b above, where the bottom plane and the plane shown in annotated Fig. 4b are the same plane and because the battery (38) is downstream of (i.e. below) the fine filter part (71), which is the same positioning taught by Son, the battery (38) also lies below the bottom plane).
Conrad, as modified, fails to disclose the dust container comprises an elongated rolled-up or folded plastic tube, arranged underneath the dust cyclone container in use, that gradually is unrolled or unfolded when a bag of the dust container is to be changed.
Sjoberg is also concerned with collecting material of a vacuum cleaner cyclone in a bag and teaches the dust container (Fig. 1 element 21) comprises an elongated rolled-up or folded plastic tube (Fig. 1 element 31, 0008), arranged underneath the dust cyclone container (Fig. 1 element 10) in use, that gradually is unrolled or unfolded when a bag (Fig. 1 element 37) of the dust container is to be changed (0011 and 0013). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to modify the dust extractor of Conrad, as modified, to have the dust container comprise an elongated folded plastic tube arranged underneath the dusty cyclone container in use, that gradually is unfolded when a bag of the dust container is to be changed, as taught by Sjoberg, to reduce the amount of downtime required for changing bags. Examiner notes that Applicant does not provide any criticality for the dust container comprising an elongated rolled-up or folded plastic tube in the specification.
PNG
media_image1.png
742
842
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Conrad, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the dust separating part comprises an opening facing a clean side of the dust separating part (Conrad, see annotated Fig. 4b' below, where a clean side of the dust separating part is a subset of the clean portion of the dust container which encompasses the entirety of the clean portion of the dust container), wherein the opening of the dust separating part lies in the plane (Conrad, see annotated Fig. 4b' below and annotated Fig. 4b above), wherein there is a shortest distance between an opening of the fine filter part (Conrad, Figs. 4b and 4c, where an opening of the fine filter part (71) corresponds any one of the spaces between the pleats of the filter part (71)) that faces the contaminated section of the fine filter part and the plane (Conrad, see annotated Fig. 4b' below, where it can be seen that the filter part opening extends in a v-shape through the plane, which means that there is no distance between the opening of the fine filter part and the plane), wherein that distance falls below .3 times a length of the fine filter part along a center axis of the fine filter part (Conrad, see annotated Fig. 4b' below, where zero distance is less than .3 times any length which includes a length of the fine filter part along a center axis of the fine filter part).
PNG
media_image2.png
672
886
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Conrad, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the dust cyclone container has a diameter perpendicular to the center axis (Conrad, see annotated Fig. 4b above), and the fine filter part has a center axis (Conrad, see annotated Fig. 4b above), wherein there is a first shortest distance between the center axis of the dust cyclone container and the center axis of the fine filter part where the first shortest distance extends along a length along the center axis of the fine filter part (Conrad, see annotated Fig. 4b above).
Conrad, as modified, fails to disclose that the first shortest distance between the center axis of the dust cyclone container and the center axis of the fine filter part is less than 1.2 times the diameter of the dust cyclone container. Examiner notes that Applicant provides no criticality in the specification for the claimed range. Conrad, as modified, discloses that there is a first shortest distance between the center axis of the dust cyclone container and the center axis of the fine filter part, but is silent to the specific dimension/provide a relative range for the first shortest distance to fall within. In other words, Conrad, as modified, fails to explicitly disclose (a) definite values the first shortest distance that the dust extractor is to possess is less than 1.2 times the diameter of the dust cyclone container. The first shortest distance of dust extractor is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that the size, filtering capability, and storage capability of the dust extractor are each proportional to the first shortest distance between the center axis of the dust cyclone container and the center axis of the fine filter part. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the dust extractor has a first shortest distance between the center axis of the dust cyclone container and the center axis of the fine filter part, was disclosed in the prior art by Conrad, as modified, 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 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the dust extractor disclosed by Conrad, as modified, to have a first shortest distance between the center axis of the dust cyclone container and the center axis of the fine filter part is less than 1.2 times the diameter of the dust cyclone container.
Regarding claim 5, Conrad, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 4, as described above, and further discloses the fine filter section is adapted to hold a plurality of fine filter parts (Conrad, Fig. 4b, where both elements 71 and 65 are fine filter parts), the dust cyclone container has a diameter perpendicular to the center axis (Conrad, see annotated Fig. 4b above), and the fine filter parts have center axes (Conrad, see annotated Fig. 4b above, where the center of fine filter part is the same axis for both fine filter parts), wherein a second distance is a shortest distance between the center axis of the dust cyclone container and a center axis of a fine filter part that is farthest away from the dust cyclone container and the second distance is the same along the extension (the length along the center axis) of the fine filter part(Conrad, see annotated Fig. 4b above, where the second distance is the same as the first shortest distance).
Conrad, as modified, fails to disclose that the second distance is less than 1.2 times the diameter of the dust cyclone container. Examiner notes that Applicant provides no criticality in the specification for the claimed range. Conrad, as modified, discloses that there is a second distance between the center axis of the dust cyclone container and the center axis of the fine filter part, but is silent to the specific dimension/provide a relative range for the second distance to fall within. In other words, Conrad, as modified, fails to explicitly disclose (a) definite values the second distance that the dust extractor is to possess is less than 1.2 times the diameter of the dust cyclone container. The second distance of dust extractor is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that the size, filtering capability, and storage capability of the dust extractor are each proportional to the second distance between the center axis of the dust cyclone container and the center axis of the fine filter part. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the dust extractor has a second distance between the center axis of the dust cyclone container and the center axis of the fine filter part, was disclosed in the prior art by Conrad, as modified, 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 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the dust extractor disclosed by Conrad, as modified, to have a second distance between the center axis of the dust cyclone container and the center axis of the fine filter part is less than 1.2 times the diameter of the dust cyclone container.
Regarding claim 7, Conrad, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the dust extractor comprises a lid arrangement (Conrad, Fig. 4b element 32) arranged to cover a top of the dust cyclone container (Conrad, Fig. 4b element 18) and a top of the fine filter section (Conrad, Fig. 4b element 26), in a normal operative configuration of the dust extractor (Conrad, the configuration shown in Fig. 4b).
Regarding claim 9, Conrad, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 7, as described above, and further discloses the lid arrangement comprises interior walls (Conrad, Fig. 4b element 60) for the air channel, such that interior walls of the lid arrangement at least partly define the air channel (Conrad, 0061).
Regarding claim 21, Conrad, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses opposing outer surfaces of the dust cyclone container and the fine filter section at least partly have substantially complementary shapes, wherein said complementary shapes are essentially cylindrical (Conrad, Fig. 1, where element 24 corresponds to the outer surface of the fine filter section and element 16 corresponds to the outer surface of the dust cyclone container, and the two outer surfaces (24 and 16) are opposing and substantially cylindrical complementary shapes).
Regarding claim 23, Conrad, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the fine filter section partly surrounds the dust cyclone container such that the fine filter section extends on lateral sides of a portion of the dust cyclone container (Conrad, Fig. 4b, where the portion of the fine filter section surface (24) which contacts the dust cyclone container surface (16) partly surrounds the dust cyclone container and extends on lateral sides of a portion of the dust cyclone container (e.g. the sides of the dust cyclone container surface (16) in contact with the fine filter section surface (24)).
Regarding claim 26, Conrad, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the dust separating part is a coarse filter part (Conrad, 0058, where when the screen is provided to the openings (57), the dust separating part (55) is a coarse filter) having a center axis coinciding with the center axis of the dust cyclone container (Conrad, see annotated Fig. 4b above, where the center axis of the coarse filter (55) coincides with the center axis of the dust cyclone container).
Regarding claim 27, Conrad, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the dust cyclone container includes at least one cyclone (Conrad, Fig. 4b element 44, 0055).
Regarding claim 29, Conrad, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the battery slot is positioned below a bottom of the fine filter part in a normal operative position of the dust extractor when the fine filter part is mounted to the fine filter section (Son, Fig. 7 and 17, where Fig. 7 shows a normal operative position), wherein the bottom is positioned at the end of the fine filter part opposite to the end having the opening of the fine filter part (Conrad, Fig. 4b, where the bottommost surface of the fine filter part (71) is positioned at the end of the fine filter part (71) opposite (e.g. below) to the end having an opening of the fine filter part, where the opening of the fine filter part (71) corresponds any one of the spaces between the pleats of the filter part (71) shown in Fig. 4c).
Regarding claim 31, Conrad, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the battery slot is positioned below a bottom of the fine filter part (Son, Fig. 7 and 17) and a bottom plane (Conrad, see annotated Fig. 4b above, where the bottom plane and the plane shown in annotated Fig. 4b are the same plane and because the battery (38) lies below the fine filter part (71)), the battery (38) also lies below the bottom plane), wherein the bottom of the fine filter part is positioned opposite an opening of the fine filter part when the fine filter part is mounted to the fine filter section (Conrad, Fig. 4b, where the bottommost surface of the fine filter part (71) is positioned at the end of the fine filter part (71) opposite (e.g. below) to the end having an opening of the fine filter part, where the opening of the fine filter part (71) corresponds any one of the spaces between the pleats of the filter part (71) shown in Fig. 4c), and wherein the bottom plane runs perpendicular to the center axis of the dust cyclone container (Conrad, see annotated Fig. 4b above), and wherein the bottom of the dust cyclone container, in the region of the mounting position for the dust container, lies in the bottom plane (Conrad, see annotated Fig. 4b above, where the section of the dust cyclone container (12) which is at and below the plane corresponds to a bottom of the dust cyclone container and where the region of the mounting position is a subset of the bottom of the dust cyclone container which encompasses the entirety of the bottom of the dust cyclone container).
Regarding claim 34, Conrad, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the air through the fine filter part is guided along a path through at least one battery compartment of the at least one battery slot (Son, 20:16-23, where "the space" corresponds to at least one battery compartment).
Claims 24 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrad (US20080172992), in view of Son et al. (US10575690), hereinafter Son, in further view of Sjoberg et al. (US20050125943), hereinafter Sjoberg, and in further view of Iversen (US20020174508).
Regarding claim 24, Conrad, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the dust cyclone container and the fine filter section are detachably mounted to each other (Conrad, 0049).
Conrad, as modified, fails to disclose that the detachable mounting is by fasteners.
Iversen is also concerned with a dust extractor and teaches detachable mounting by fasteners (0033, where a screw corresponds to a fastener). Pursuant of MPEP 2144.06-II, it has been held obvious to substitute equivalents for the same purpose. Conrad, as modified, discloses the invention except that the connection between the dust cyclone container and the fine filter section is a glue connection instead of a fastener connection. Iversen shows that a fastener connection is an equivalent structure known in the art (see 0033 of Iversen which explicitly discusses the equivalence of glue and multiple types of fasteners). Therefore, because these two connection types were art-recognized equivalents at the time of the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to substitute a fastener connection for a glue connection.
Regarding claim 37, Conrad, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses wherein the mobility section is releasably attached to the fine filter and the fine filter section is releasably attached to the dust cyclone container (Conrad, 0049, where at least a portion of the mobility section (at least element 22) is releasably attached to the fine filter section (14) by the releasable attachment between the fine filter section (14) and the dust cyclone container (12)).
Conrad, as modified, fails to disclose that the detachable mounting is by rotary fasteners.
Iversen is also concerned with a dust extractor and teaches detachable mounting by rotary fasteners (0033, where a screw corresponds to a fastener). Pursuant of MPEP 2144.06-II, it has been held obvious to substitute equivalents for the same purpose. Conrad, as modified, discloses the invention except that the connection between the dust cyclone container and the fine filter section is a glue connection instead of a rotary fastener connection. Iversen shows that a rotary fastener connection is an equivalent structure known in the art (see 0033 of Iversen which explicitly discusses the equivalence of glue and multiple types of rotary fasteners). Therefore, because these two connection types were art-recognized equivalents at the time of the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to substitute a rotary fastener connection for a glue connection.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrad (US20080172992), in view of Son et al. (US10575690), hereinafter Son, in further view of Sjoberg et al. (US20050125943), hereinafter Sjoberg, and in further view of Dyson (US5090976).
Regarding claim 25, Conrad, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to disclose the dust container is a plastic bag which during operation at least periodically constitutes a barrier to the ambient air for the interior of the dust cyclone container, such that, during operation, the air pressure on the inside of the plastic bag is at least periodically lower than the air pressure on the outside of the plastic bag.
Dyson is also concerned with a dust extractor and teaches the dust container is a plastic bag (Fig. 2 element 40, 3:1-3) which during operation at least periodically constitutes a barrier to the ambient air for the interior of the dust cyclone container, such that, during operation, the air pressure on the inside of the plastic bag is at least periodically lower than the air pressure on the outside of the plastic bag (3:1-3, where imperforate is equivalent to air tight and according to Applicant's specification (see page 15 lines 8-13) the bag being made of plastic and being air tight meets these limitations). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to modify the dust extractor of Conrad, as modified, to make the dust container a plastic bag which meets the claimed operation requirements, as taught by Dyson, because Dyson teaches that using a plastic bag as the dust container allows for disposing of the separated dirt cleanly (3:18-24).
Claims 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrad (US20080172992), in view of Son et al. (US10575690), hereinafter Son, in further view of Sjoberg et al. (US20050125943), hereinafter Sjoberg, and in further view of Kastner et al. (EP3409160), attached as a PDF and hereinafter referred to as Kastner.
Regarding claim 32, Conrad, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to disclose a battery insertion direction of the at least one battery slot is arranged at an angle with respect to a plane orthogonal to the center axis of the fine filter part.
Kastner is also concerned with a dust extractor and teaches a battery insertion direction of the at least one battery slot is arranged at an angle with respect to a horizontal plane (Fig. 2, 0018). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to modify the dust extractor of Conrad, as modified, to make the battery insertion direction of the at least one battery slot is arranged at an angle with respect to a horizontal plane, as taught by Kastner, because Kastner teaches that having an insertion direction for a battery be at a downward angle relative to a horizontal plane "enables a comfortable insertion of the replaceable battery into the receptacle" (0018).
Modifying Conrad, as modified, with the teachings of Kastner, as described above, then yields a battery insertion direction of the at least one battery slot is arranged at an angle with respect to a plane orthogonal to the center axis of the fine filter part (Kastner, Fig. 2, 0018, where the horizontal surface (15) shown in Kastner corresponds to a plane orthogonal to the center axis of the fine filter part disclosed by Conrad and shown in annotated Fig. 4b above, where the plane shown in annotated Fig. 4b coincides with a plane orthogonal to the center axis of the fine filter part).
Regarding claim 33, Conrad, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 32, as described above, and further discloses the battery insertion direction of the at least one battery slot is arranged at a downward slope with respect to a horizontal plane when the dust extractor is in use (Kastner, Fig. 2, 0018).
Claims 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrad (US20080172992), in view of Son et al. (US10575690), hereinafter Son, in further view of Sjoberg et al. (US20050125943), hereinafter Sjoberg, and in further view of Lauer (US20170035261).
Regarding claim 35, Conrad, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 34, as described above, but fails to disclose the at least one battery slot comprises a first battery compartment and a second battery compartment, wherein the path passes only via the second battery compartment.
Lauer is also concerned with a dust extractor and teaches the at least one battery slot (Fig. 6, where the opening of element 236 corresponds to at least one battery slot) comprises a first battery compartment (Fig. 6, where the area that element 38 occupies corresponds to a first battery compartment) and a second battery compartment (Fig. 6, where the area that element 38' occupies corresponds to a second battery compartment). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to modify the dust extractor of Conrad, as modified, to make the at least one battery slot have a first and second battery compartment, as taught by Lauer, because Lauer teaches that having two battery compartments allows for swapping out a dead battery with a fresh battery (0053) and examiner further finds that this would reduce downtime of the dust extractor.
Modifying Conrad, as modified, with the teachings of Lauer, as described above, then yields, the at least one battery slot (Son, Fig. 17 element 334, 20:31-35) comprises a first battery compartment (Lauer, Fig. 6, where the area that element 38 occupies corresponds to a first battery compartment) and a second battery compartment (Lauer, Fig. 6, where the area that element 38' occupies corresponds to a second battery compartment), wherein the path passes only via the second battery compartment (the air will flow through both the first and second battery compartments, but the airflow will be split into two paths and there will be a path which will pass only via the second battery compartment).
Regarding claim 36, Conrad, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to disclose the at least one battery slot comprises a first battery compartment and a second battery compartment, wherein at least one of the first and second battery compartments comprise a cooling air entry aperture and a cooling air exit aperture, wherein the air through the fine filter part is arranged to enter the first battery compartment or the second battery compartment via the cooling air entry aperture after having passed through the fine filter part, and to exit the first battery compartment or the second battery compartment via the cooling air exit aperture.
Lauer is also concerned with a dust extractor and teaches the at least one battery slot (Fig. 6, where the opening of element 236 corresponds to at least one battery slot) comprises a first battery compartment (Fig. 6, where the area that element 38 occupies corresponds to a first battery compartment) and a second battery compartment (Fig. 6, where the area that element 38' occupies corresponds to a second battery compartment), wherein at least one of the first and second battery compartments comprise a cooling air entry aperture (0049, where the first end wall (87) having "one or more openings or perforations" corresponds to a cooling air entry of at least the first or second battery compartments) and a cooling air exit aperture (Fig. 6, where the opening at the top of the at least one battery slot (86) corresponds a cooling air exit aperture of at least the first or second battery compartments). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to modify the dust extractor of Conrad, as modified, to make the at least one battery slot have a first and second battery compartment, as taught by Lauer, because Lauer teaches that having two battery compartments allows for swapping out a dead battery with a fresh battery (0053) and examiner further finds that this would reduce downtime of the dust extractor.
Modifying Conrad, as modified, with the teachings of Lauer, as described above, the yields the air through the fine filter part is arranged to enter the first battery compartment or the second battery compartment via the cooling air entry aperture (Lauer, 0049, where the first end wall (87) having "one or more openings or perforations" corresponds to a cooling air entry of at least the first or second battery compartments) after having passed through the fine filter part (based on the arrangement of the battery and fine filter part taught into Conrad by Son, the air would travel through the filter and then to the first or second battery compartments) and to exit the first battery compartment or the second battery compartment via the cooling air exit aperture (Lauer, Fig. 6, where the opening at the top of the at least one battery slot (86) corresponds a cooling air exit aperture of at least the first or second battery compartments).
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrad (US20080172992), in view of Son et al. (US10575690), hereinafter Son, in further view of Sjoberg et al. (US20050125943), hereinafter Sjoberg, and in further view of Haberl et al. (US5066315), hereinafter Haberl.
Regarding claim 38, Conrad, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the dust extractor comprises a lid arrangement (Conrad, Fig. 4b element 32) arranged to cover a top of the dust cyclone container (Conrad, Fig. 4b element 18) and a top of the fine filter section (Conrad, Fig. 4b element 26), in a normal operative configuration of the dust extractor (Conrad, the configuration shown in Fig. 4b).
Conrad, as modified, fails to disclose the lid arrangement is provided with a relief valve that, when opened, is adapted to enable air from the ambient to enter via the relief valve into a clean side of the coarse filter part in the dust cyclone container, enabling the pressure at the clean side of the coarse filter part to be increased to a degree enabling dust attached to a contaminated side of the coarse filter part to be released from the coarse filter.
Haberl is also concerned with a dust extractor and teaches the lid arrangement (Fig. 1 element 17) is provided with a relief valve (Fig. 1 element 32) that, when opened, is adapted to enable air from the ambient to enter via the relief valve into a clean side of the coarse filter part in the dust cyclone container (Fig. 1, the portion of the cyclone container (10) which is surrounded by the coarse filter part (Fig. 1 element 20) and thereby internal to the coarse filter part (20) corresponds to a clean side of the coarse filter part), enabling the pressure at the clean side of the coarse filter part to be increased to a degree enabling dust attached to the contaminated side of the coarse filter part (Fig. 1, the portion of the cyclone container (10) which is external to the coarse filter part (20) corresponds to a contaminated side of the coarse filter part) to be released from the coarse filter (3:57-4:16 and 4:36-63). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to modify the dust extractor of Conrad, as modified, to include a relief valve on the lid arrangement, as taught by Haberl, because Haberl teaches that the relief valve allows for cleaning of the coarse filter without interrupting the normal operation of the cyclone apparatus (4:36-42).
Claims 48-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrad (US20080172992), in view of Son et al. (US10575690), hereinafter Son, and in further view of Iversen (US20020174508).
Regarding claim 48, Conrad discloses a dust extractor comprising a fan motor (Fig. 4b element 42) arranged to draw air from an air inlet (Fig. 1a element 38) of the dust extractor through a dust separating part (Fig. 4b element 55) and through a fine filter part (Fig. 4b element 71 corresponds to a fine filter part, 0005, where the suction motor is capable of drawing air from the air inlet through the dust separating part and the fine filter part), wherein a dust cyclone container (Fig. 4b element 12, excluding element 22) and a fine filter section (Fig. 4b element 14, excluding element 30) are detachably mounted to each other (0049),
Conrad fails to disclose the dust extractor further comprising a battery slot with one or more battery compartments, wherein the air drawn from the air inlet is arranged to be guided along a path via at least one of the one or more battery compartments, wherein the detachable mounting is by fasteners.
Son is also concerned with a dust extractor and teaches the blower/fan motor (Fig. 7 element 35) is adapted to be powered at least partly by at least one onboard battery (Fig. 7 element 38), wherein the battery is located in a battery slot (Fig. 17 element 334, 20:31-35) with one or more battery compartments (20:16-23, where "the space" corresponds to one or more battery compartments), wherein the air drawn from the air inlet is arranged to be guided along a path via at least one of the one or more battery compartments (20:16-23).
Pursuant of MPEP 2144.06-II, it has been held obvious to substitute equivalents for the same purpose. Conrad discloses the invention except that the power source is an electrical cord instead of at least one battery located in one or more battery compartments. Son shows that using at least one battery located in one or more battery compartments is an equivalent structure known in the art (e.g. both power sources supply power to a dust extractor). Therefore, because these two power source types were art-recognized equivalents at the time of the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to substitute at least one battery located in one or more battery compartments for an electrical cord. Also, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to modify the dust extractor of Conrad, as modified, to have air drawn from the air inlet be guided along a path via at least one of the one or more battery compartments, as taught by Son, because Son teaches that this allows for cooling of the battery (20:20-24).
Conrad, as modified, then yields the battery slot is at least partly positioned on, or below, a bottom plane that runs perpendicular to a center axis of the dust cyclone container (Conrad, see annotated Fig. 4b above, where the bottom plane and the plane shown in annotated Fig. 4b are the same plane and because the battery (38) is downstream of (i.e. below) the fine filter part (71), which is the same positioning taught by Son, the battery (38) also lies below the bottom plane). Examiner notes that the bottom plane recited in claim 48 could be anywhere in space and therefore the bottom plane could be above the entire dust extractor, which would mean that any dust extractor with a battery slot would meet this limitation.
Conrad, as modified, fails to disclose that the detachable mounting is by fasteners.
Iversen is also concerned with a dust extractor and teaches detachable mounting by fasteners (0033, where a screw corresponds to a fastener). Pursuant of MPEP 2144.06-II, it has been held obvious to substitute equivalents for the same purpose. Conrad, as modified, discloses the invention except that the connection between the dust cyclone container and the fine filter section is a glue connection instead of a fastener connection. Iversen shows that a fastener connection is an equivalent structure known in the art (see 0033 of Iversen which explicitly discusses the equivalence of glue and multiple types of fasteners). Therefore, because these two connection types were art-recognized equivalents at the time of the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to substitute a fastener connection for a glue connection.
Regarding claim 49, Conrad discloses a dust extractor comprising
- a dust cyclone container (Fig. 4b element 12, excluding element 22) with an air inlet (Fig. 1a element 38) for connecting to a hose (0055, where a flexible hose corresponds to a hose), the dust cyclone container having a contaminated portion downstream the air inlet (Fig. 4b, the portion of the cyclone container (12) which is external to element 55 correspond to a contaminated portion) and a clean portion downstream the contaminated portion (Fig. 4b, the portion of the cyclone container (12) which is surrounded by element 55 and thereby internal to element 55 corresponds to a clean portion), and a dust separating part (Fig. 4b element 55) is adapted to be provided between the contaminated portion and the clean portion (Fig. 4b), the dust separating part comprising at least one cyclone and/or a coarse filter part (0058, where the dust separating part (55) is a coarse filter part (e.g. a pre-filter part)), wherein the contaminated portion of the dust cyclone container is adapted to be provided with a dust container (Fig. 4b, 0055, where a dirt collection chamber corresponds to a dust container), for collecting dust (0055-0056),
- a fine filter section (Fig. 4b element 14, excluding element 30) arranged adjacent to the dust cyclone container (Fig. 4b) and having a contaminated section (Fig. 4b, the section of the fine filter section (14) which is directly above element 65 corresponds to a contaminated section) and a clean section downstream the contaminated section (Fig. 4b, the section downstream of element 71 corresponds to a clean section), and a fine filter part (Fig. 4b element 71) is adapted to be provided between the contaminated section and the clean section (Fig. 4b),
- a mobility section (Fig. 1a element 84 and Fig. 4b elements 22 and 30, 0068) comprising wheels (Fig. 1a element 84, 0068, where one or more wheels corresponds to wheels) and a frame (Fig. 4b elements 22 and 30),
- an air channel (Fig. 4b element 58), between the clean portion of the dust cyclone container and a contaminated section of the fine filter part (Fig. 4b),
- a fan motor (Fig. 4b element 42), mounted to the fine filter section (Fig. 4b), for drawing air from the air inlet through the dust separating part, through the air channel and through the fine filter part, and allowing air to exit to the ambient after having passed the fine filter part (0005, where the suction motor is capable of drawing air from the air inlet through the dust separating part, air channel, and the fine filter part, and allowing air to exit to ambient),
wherein the dust cyclone container has a center axis along its longitudinal extension (see annotated Fig. 4b above), and the fine filter part is provided at a radial distance from the dust cyclone container (Fig. 4b, where the thickness of sidewall (16) and the thickness of sidewall (24) added together corresponds to a radial distance) along a plane perpendicular to the center axis of the dust cyclone container (see annotated Fig. 4b above), the plane coinciding with the dust cyclone container and a portion of the fine filter part (see annotated Fig. 4b above), and
wherein the dust cyclone container and the fine filter section are detachably mounted to each other (0049).
Conrad fails to disclose the detachable mounting is by fasteners and a battery slot is at least partly positioned on, or below, a bottom plane that runs perpendicular to the center axis of the dust cyclone container.
Son is also concerned with a dust extractor and teaches the blower/fan motor (Fig. 7 element 35) is adapted to be powered at least partly by at least one onboard battery (Fig. 7 element 38), wherein the battery is located in a battery slot (Fig. 17 element 334, 20:31-35).
Pursuant of MPEP 2144.06-II, it has been held obvious to substitute equivalents for the same purpose. Conrad discloses the invention except that the power source is an electrical cord and therefore does not use a battery slot instead of a battery located in a battery slot. Son shows that using a battery located in a battery slot is an equivalent structure known in the art (e.g. both power sources supply power to a dust extractor). Therefore, because these two power source types were art-recognized equivalents at the time of the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to substitute a battery located a battery slot for an electrical cord.
Conrad, as modified, then yields the battery slot is at least partly positioned on, or below, a bottom plane that runs perpendicular to a center axis of the dust cyclone container (Conrad, see annotated Fig. 4b above, where the bottom plane and the plane shown in annotated Fig. 4b are the same plane and because the battery (38) is downstream of (i.e. below) the fine filter part (71), which is the same positioning taught by Son, the battery (38) also lies below the bottom plane). Examiner notes that the bottom plane recited in claim 49 could be anywhere in space and therefore the bottom plane could be above the entire dust extractor, which would mean that any dust extractor with a battery slot would meet this limitation.
Conrad, as modified, fails to disclose that the detachable mounting is by fasteners.
Iversen is also concerned with a dust extractor and teaches detachable mounting by fasteners (0033, where a screw corresponds to a fastener). Pursuant of MPEP 2144.06-II, it has been held obvious to substitute equivalents for the same purpose. Conrad, as modified, discloses the invention except that the connection between the dust cyclone container and the fine filter section is a glue connection instead of a fastener connection. Iversen shows that a fastener connection is an equivalent structure known in the art (see 0033 of Iversen which explicitly discusses the equivalence of glue and multiple types of fasteners). Therefore, because these two connection types were art-recognized equivalents at the time of the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to substitute a fastener connection for a glue connection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 3/6/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 48-49 under 35 U.S.C. 103, specifically that examiner stated in the previous action that Conrad taught the claimed positioning of the battery without a battery being taught by Conrad, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Conrad (US20080172992), in view of Son et al. (US10575690), hereinafter Son, and in further view of Sjoberg et al. (US20050125943), hereinafter Sjoberg. This change was made to clarify examiner’s position and does not deviate from examiner’s intentions for what the teachings of Son are being taught into Conrad for, and therefore, examiner has also responded to Applicant’s arguments regarding the combination of Conrad and Son below.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that combining the teachings of a battery and battery slot of Son into the dust extractor of Conrad fails to disclose “a battery slot is at least partly positioned on, or below, a bottom plane that runs perpendicular to the center axis of the dust cyclone container” because “Son's battery slot is located under the body part in the same plane as the wheel, and the axis is not perpendicular to any vertical center line”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds that examiner is not relying upon Son to teach the claimed bottom plane or center axis of the dust cyclone container, but instead examiner is only using Son to teach the use of a battery installed in a battery slot, where the battery slot is provided beneath a fine filter part. Examiner finds that when this teaching is brought into the dust extractor of Conrad, where the plane (i.e. bottom plane) shown in annotated Fig. 4b above goes through the fine filter part and is located above the bottommost surface of the fine filter part, Conrad, as modified, then teaches that the battery slot is below the bottom plane.
Regarding claims 48-49, Applicant makes the same argument as in claim 1 discussed above and examiner finds the argument unpersuasive for the same reasons discussed above. Examiner further notes that the bottom plane recited in claims 48 and 49 could be anywhere in space and therefore the bottom plane could be above the entire dust extractor, which would mean that any dust extractor with a battery slot would meet this limitation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CALEB A HOLIZNA whose telephone number is (571)272-5659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-4:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Monica Carter can be reached 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.
/C.A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights