Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office action is in response to amendments filed on 04/13/2026. Claims 1-12 are pending; claims 1-6, 9, and 11-12 are rejected; and claims 7-8 and 10 are withdrawn. Newly filed specification and drawing (fig. 2) on 04/13/2026 are accepted. Previously filed specification objection is withdrawn, as necessitated by newly filed abstract.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 3 objected to because of the following grammar and antecedent basis informalities:
Claim 1, ll. 27, consider amending to, --decreases [[its ]]speed at a location at which the second—
Claim 3, ll. 2, consider amending to, --wherein the second passage of the suction tube portion and the third passage of the separation—
Appropriate correction is required.
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 3 and 9 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 3 recites the limitation “a location at which the second passage and the third passage merge into the first passage” in ll. 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear to the Examiner whether this is a new, separate location from “a location” in claim 1 or whether this is the same location. As best understood and for examination purposes, “a location” in claim 3 is the same location in which the second passage and the third passage merge into the first passage in claim 1.
Claim 3, ll. 4, --to the second passage, at [[a]]the location at which the second passage and the third passage merge—
Claim 9 recites the limitation "a cap member" in ll. 2 of the claim and “the combination portion” in ll. 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. First, a cap member was introduced in claim 1 and it is unclear to the Examiner whether a second cap member is required or if “a cap member” in claim 9 is the same cap member from claim 1. As best understood from instant disclosure, only one cap member is included in the tube and “a cap member” from claim 9 is the same cap member from claim 1. Second, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the combining portion” and it is unclear to the Examiner whether this is a new limitation or whether this combining portion refers to the location in which the second passage and the third passage merge into the first passage. As best understood and for examination purposes, the combining portion is the location at which the second and third passages merge.
Claim 9, --The suction and separation composite tube according to claim 1, further comprising [[a]]the cap member adapted to close an opening of the separation tube portion opposite to the location at which the second passage and the third passage merge into the first passage so as to be open or closed.--
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-6, 9, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frazier (US Patent No. 5,410,775) as evidenced by Kessler (DE19607959), as provided by the Examiner.
Regarding claim 1, Frazier discloses a suction and separation composite tube (embodiment of figs. 5) comprising:
a connecting tube portion (item 80; fig. 5) configured to form a linear first passage (defined as inner linear, i.e. straight, passage within connecting tube 80) inside and to include a proximal end (designated in annotated fig. 5 below) connectable to a power-driven air blower (item 100; col. 2, ll. 46-50; fig. 5);
a suction tube portion (item 20; figs. 5-6) configured to form a linear second passage (defined as linear, i.e. straight, inner passage within suction tube 20; fig. 5) inside and to include a distal end (designated in annotated fig. 5 below) at which a suction port (item 10; fig. 5) is provided which is open to communicate with outside air and from which objects are sucked in the suction tube portion by operation of the power-driven air blower (col. 5, ll. 44-48 and col. 7, ll. 63-66);
a separation tube portion (item 60; figs. 5-6) configured to form a linear third passage (defined as linear, i.e. straight, inner passage, i.e. within space 64, formed by straight walls of tube 60; figs. 5-6) and to include a distal end (designated in annotated fig. 5 below), wherein the suction tube portion and the separation tube portion connect to the connecting tube portion so that the second and third passages merge into the first passage (airflow from suction tube portion 20 and airflow from separation tube portion 60 merge into connecting tube portion 80 when blower is turned on; similar to applicant’s disclosure), and wherein the third passage of the separation tube portion extends in line with the first passage of the connecting tube portion (designated in annotated fig. 5 below along dashed double-arrowed line), and the second passage of the suction tube portion extends at an angle from the line along which the first passage of the connecting tube portion and the third passage of the separation tube portion extend (angle defined as at zero degrees; as required in claim 5 below, angle is 45 degrees or smaller from the line), and
a cap member (item 66; figs. 5-6) attached to the distal end of the separation tube portion (fig. 6) to close the distal end of the separation tube portion (col. 7, ll. 15-17; fig. 5), wherein the cap member is attached to the distal end of the separation tube portion to intersect with the line along which the first passage of the connecting tube portion and the third passage of the separation tube portion extend (cap member extends perpendicularly to the line along which the first passage and the third passage extend; annotated fig. 5 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
230
643
media_image1.png
Greyscale
First Annotated Fig. 5.
The embodiment of figs. 5-6 does not explicitly disclose wherein the cap member is detachable in order to open the distal end of the separation tube portion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cap member to be detachable to use the cap member to open the distal end of the separation tube since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements for replacement, maintenance, and/or repair involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04.V-C).
Further, though Frazier discloses the materials, i.e. debris, are free to drop down into inner passage of the separation tube (col. 7, ll. 66-68), Frazier does not explicitly disclose wherein the airflow created by the power-driven air blower through the second passage of the suction tube portion decreases speed at a location at which the second passage and the third passage merge into the first passage of the connecting tube portion.
As an example, Kessler (DE19607959) teaches a suction and composite tube comprising a suction tube (item 2), a connecting tube (item 3 leads to vacuum cleaner), and a separation tube (includes items A and 4; fig. 1), wherein the airflow created by the power-drive blower through the suction tube portion decreases speed at a location at which the suction tube portion and the separation tube portion merge into the connecting tube (due to the larger cross-section, the flow velocity slows down and heavier particles fall into lower end of the separation tube portion; p. 2, pp. 2). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the airflow through the suction and composite tube of Frazier would behave in the same manner when the cross-section increases and the particles are collected within the separation tube portion (i.e. inner portion 64 of separation tube portion 60; col. 7, ll. 66-68 in Frazier).
Regarding claim 2, Frazier as modified discloses the suction and separation composite tube as claimed in claim 1, wherein the third passage of the separation tube portion is configured to have a third effective passage cross-sectional area larger than a second effective passage cross-sectional area of the second passage of the suction tube portion (third passage of separation tube portion 60 is larger than the cross-sectional area of the second passage of the suction tube portion 20 in order for suction tube portion to insert into separation tube portion; figs. 5-6).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, Frazier as modified discloses the suction and separation composite tube as claimed in claim 1, wherein the second passage of the suction tube portion and the third passage of the separation tube portion collectively form a fourth passage cross-sectional area (designated in second annotated fig. 5 below), defined in perpendicular to the second passage (second passage through suction tube portion 20 extends horizontally in view of fig. 5 and fourth passage cross-sectional area defined in vertical direction, i.e. perpendicular to suction tube passage), at the location at which the second passage and the third passage merge into the first passage (second passage of suction tube portion 20 and third passage of separation tube portion 20 merge into, i.e. combine, into connecting tube portion downstream from the suction and separation tubes), and the fourth passage cross-sectional area is larger than a second effective passage cross-sectional area of the second passage of the suction tube portion (fourth passage cross-sectional area is defined as area of suction tube passage cross-sectional area and cross-sectional area of separation tube portion pass surrounding the suction tube passage; therefore, the fourth passage cross-sectional area is larger than the cross-sectional area of the second passage of the suction tube portion which inserts into separation tube; figs. 5-6).
PNG
media_image2.png
288
482
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Second Annotated Fig. 5.
Regarding claim 4, Frazier as modified discloses the suction and separation composite tube as claimed in claim 1, wherein the connecting tube portion is more proximal than either the suction tube portion or the separation tube portion (connecting tube portion 80 is proximal to power-driven air blower 100 than the separation tube portion 60 and the suction tube portion 20; fig. 5).
Regarding claim 5, Frazier as modified discloses the suction and separation composite tube as claimed in claim 1, wherein the second passage of the suction tube portion extends at an angle of 45 degrees or smaller from the line along which the first passage of the connecting tube portion and the third passage of the separation tube portion extends (second passage extends at a zero degree angle, i.e. 45 degrees or smaller; first annotated fig. 5 above).
Regarding claim 6, Frazier as modified discloses the suction and separation composite tube as claimed in claim 1, wherein the separation tube portion is disposed nearer to an operator than the suction tube portion is (left-most boundary of separation tube portion 60 is nearer to an operator than the left-most edge of suction tube portion 20 when assembled and in use).
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, Frazier as modified discloses the suction and separation composite tube as claimed in claim 1, further comprising the cap member (item 66; figs. 5-6) adapted to close an opening of the separation tube portion (fig. 6) opposite to the location at which the second passage and the third passage merge so as to be open or closed (cap member 66 is capable of being closed to collect debris within the separation tube passage and as modified from above, capable of being opened).
Regarding claim 11, Frazier as modified discloses a suction cleaning machine (item 100; fig. 5) using the suction and separation composite tube as claimed in claim 1 (figs. 5-6).
Claims 1, 4, 6, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamo (US 2017/0007087), as provided in IDS filed on 5/18/2023, as evidenced by Lau (US 2006/0090290).
Regarding claim 1, Kamo (US 2017/0007087) discloses a suction and separation composite tube (fig. 1) comprising:
a connecting tube portion (item 12; fig. 1) configured to form a linear first passage (defined as inner passage of connecting tube 12 which extends linearly, designated in annotated fig. 1 below as P1) inside and to include a proximal end (item 12d; pp. [0036]; fig. 1) connectable to a power-driven air blower (item 1; pp. [0037]; proximal end 12d detachably attaches to opening 25 of air blower 2);
a suction tube portion (item 10; fig. 1) configured to form a linear second passage (defined as inner passage of suction tube 10 which extends linearly, designated in annotated fig. 1 below as P2) inside and to include a distal end (designated in annotated fig. 1 below) at which a suction port (defined as opening at end of suction tube portion 10 in which airflow is sucked through; pp. [0039]; fig. 1) is provided which is open to communicate with outside air and from which objects are sucked in the suction tube portion by operation of the power-driven air blower (pp. [0039]; fig. 1);
a separation tube portion (includes items 13, 14; fig. 1) configured to form a linear third passage (at least a portion of inner passage of separation tube portion, i.e. at end 13c, extends linearly; designated in annotated fig. 1 below as P3) and to include a distal end (item 13c; fig. 1), wherein the suction tube portion and the separation tube portion connect to the connecting tube portion so that the second and third passages merge into the first passage (second passage, i.e. airflow from suction tube, merges into first passage within connecting tube 12 via intermediate components and at least a portion of third passage, i.e. airflow from separation tube, merges directly into first passage; similar to applicant’s disclosure in which airflow of passages merge into singular connecting tube passage, fig. 2 of instant disclosure), and wherein the third passage of the separation tube portion extends in line with the first passage of the connecting tube portion (designated in annotated fig. 1 below), and the second passage of the suction tube portion extends at an angle from the line along which the first passage of the connecting tube portion and the third passage of the separation tube portion extend (designated in annotated fig. 1 below; pp. [0036]; second passage of suction tube portion 10 extends at an angle off the axial line L), and
a cap member (item 16; fig. 1) attached to the distal end of the separation tube portion (fig. 1) to open and close the distal end of the separation tube portion (pp. [0037] and [0039]; cap member 16 is detachably attached to distal end of separation tube 13 in order to close distal end and open distal end of separation tube when debris needs to be emptied), wherein the cap member is attached to the distal end of the separation tube portion to intersect with the line along which the first passage of the connecting tube portion and the third passage of the separation tube portion extend (cap member extends perpendicularly to the line along which the first passage and the third passage extend; annotated fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
392
724
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1.
Though Kamo discloses a centrifugal airflow through the separation tube to separate heavier objects from the lighter objects (pp. [0039-0040]), Kamo does not explicitly disclose wherein the airflow created by the power-driven air blower through the second passage of the suction tube portion decreases speed at a location at which the second passage and the third passage merge into the first passage of the connecting tube portion (location defined as end 12c of first passage of the connecting tube portion).
However, as an example, Lau (US 2006/0090290) teaches a suction and composite apparatus comprising a suction tube (tube of passage 23, 24; fig. 3), a connecting portion (through items 30, 32, 34, 37; fig. 3), and a separation tube portion (item 16; fig. 3), wherein the airflow created by the power-drive blower through the suction portion decreases speed at a location at which the suction tube portion and the separation tube portion merge into the connecting portion (location defined as end of connecting portion, i.e. item 37; the tapered design of centrifugal chamber, analogous to the tapering of centrifugal chamber in Kamo, increases air speed within the chamber as the air moves to the distal end of the chamber, thereby decreasing speed at outflow aperture, pp. [0013-0014] in Lau).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the airflow through tapering separation tube of Kamo would behave in the same manner when the cross-section decreases of the separation tube (i.e. increasing speed towards the distal end of the separation versus the outflow aperture of the separation tube) in order to keep more of the debris in the air stream in the vicinity of the distal end of the centrifugal chamber and away from the outflow aperture (i.e. location at which passages merge into connecting tube portion) to improve the efficiency of the centrifugal chamber (pp. [0014] in Lau).
Regarding claim 4, Kamo discloses the suction and separation composite tube as claimed in claim 1, wherein the connecting tube portion is more proximal than either the suction tube portion or the separation tube portion (end 12d of connecting tube portion 12 is more proximal to power-driven air blower 2 than the separation tube portion 13 and the suction tube portion 10; fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Kamo discloses the suction and separation composite tube as claimed in claim 1, wherein the separation tube portion is disposed nearer to an operator than the suction tube portion is (end of separation tube portion 13d is closer to operator than distal end of suction tube portion that collects debris; fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, Kamo discloses the suction and separation composite tube as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a cap member (item 16; fig. 1) adapted to close an opening of the separation tube portion opposite to the combining portion (cap 16 closes distal end of separation tube portion to collect debris at an end opposite to the merge between passages) between the separation tube portion and the suction tube portion so as to be open or closed (pp. [0037] and [0039]; cap member 16 is detachably attached to distal end of separation tube 13 in order to close distal end and open distal end of separation tube when debris needs to be emptied).
Regarding claim 11, Kamo as modified discloses a suction cleaning machine (item 1; fig. 1) using the suction and separation composite tube as claimed in claim 1 (fig. 1; Examiner interpreting “using” as analogous to “utilizing” by a machine and therefore, not indefinite by MPEP 2173.05(q)).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamo (US 2017/0007087), as provided in IDS filed on 5/18/2023, as evidenced by Lau (US 2006/0090290), and further in view of Al-shorachi (US 2023/0042811).
Regarding claim 5, Kamo discloses the suction and separation composite tube as claimed in claim 1. Though Kamo discloses the second passage of the suction tube portion extends at a right angle from the line along which the first passage of the connecting tube portion and the third passage of the separation tube portion extends, Kamo also discloses the second passage need not intersect at right angles with each other (pp. [0036]).
Therefore, Al-shorachi (US 2023/0042811) teaches a suction and separation composite tube (item 18; fig. 5 embodiment) comprising a connecting tube portion (item 41; fig. 5), a suction tube portion (item 39; fig. 5), and a separation tube portion (item 32; fig. 5), wherein the suction tube portion extends at an angle of preferably between 0 and 90 degrees (pp. [0101]) from a line (item 22; fig. 5) along which the connecting tube portion and the separation tube portion extend (fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the suction and composite tube, as disclosed in Kamo, to extend at an angle less than a right angle, as taught in Al-shorachi, in order to prevent any water droplets that may have been present on the collected debris, e.g. leaves, grass, rocks, etc., to experience less inward drag force and not flow towards the outlet of the separation tube, thereby preventing damage to the drive of the blower (pp. [0037] and [0099] in Al-shorachi).
Further, Al-shorachi teaches an angle range that overlaps with the claimed angle range (claimed range 45 degrees or smaller, i.e. 0 to 45 degrees). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the angle from between 0 to 90 degrees to between 0 and 45 degrees since it has been held that in the case where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frazier (US Patent No. 5,410,775) in view of Kessler (DE19607959), and further in view of Wegerer (US Patent No. 1,308,825).
Regarding claim 12, Frazier as modified discloses the suction and separation composite tube as claimed in claim 1, wherein the tube is capable of being attached to a majority of conventional cleaners and reversible blowers for collecting light weight, loose-fill packaging materials for disposal or reuse (abstract of Frazier), but does not explicitly disclose a harvesting machine using the suction and separation composite tube.
However, Wegerer teaches a harvesting machine (11. 16-21) with a suction and separation composite tube (figs. 1-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the suction and separation composite tube, as disclosed in Frazier, using a harvesting machine (Examiner interpreting “using” as analogous to “utilizing” by a machine and therefore, not indefinite by MPEP 2173.05(q)), as taught in Wegerer, in order for the suction and separation tube to function as intended and effectively separate grain from the straw and chaff and thereby, increase the wheat or grain production (Wegerer; 11. 23-38).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claim 1 have been considered but are moot because they are addressing newly amended claim limitations, as compared to the rejection of record. The new grounds 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.
As necessitated by the amendments, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Frazier (US Patent No. 5,410,775) and Kessler (DE19607959), and a new grounds of rejection in view of Kamo (US 2017/0007087) and Lau (US 2006/0090290). The same teaching reference, Wegerer (US Patent No. 1,308,825), from Non-Final Rejection filed on 02/23/2026 is utilized in the above rejection for claim 12.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIDNEY D FULL whose telephone number is (571)272-6996. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00a.m.-2:30p.m..
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Keller can be reached at (571)272-8548. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SIDNEY D FULL/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights