DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 25 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 25 recites “wherein the wherein the inlet” but should read --wherein the inlet--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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:
“mechanism capable of generating a vacuum” in claims 2, 14, and 17, because (A) the term “mechanism” is a generic placeholder, see above; (B) “generating a vacuum” designates a function performed by the mechanism, and (C) no additional structure is specified, to support the claimed function of “generating a vacuum” – in effect the language is equivalent to a predetermined means for generating a vacuum. Examiner is interpreting “mechanism capable of generating a vacuum” to be a motor and fan based on the discussion of “mechanism capable of generating a vacuum” in at least paragraph 0034 of Applicant’s specification.
“filtering mechanism” in claims 2 and 17, because (A) the term “mechanism” is a generic placeholder, see above; (B) “filtering” designates a function performed by the mechanism, and (C) no additional structure is specified, to support the claimed function of “filtering” – in effect the language is equivalent to a predetermined means for filtering. Examiner is interpreting “filtering mechanism” to be a HEPA filter based on the discussion of “filtering mechanism” in at least paragraphs 0040-0041 of Applicant’s specification.
“particle capture member” in claims 14 and 17, because (A) the term “member” is a generic placeholder, see above; (B) “capture” designates a function performed by the member, and (C) no additional structure is specified, to support the claimed function of “capture” – in effect the language is equivalent to a predetermined means for capture. Examiner is interpreting “particle capture member” to be a U-shaped clip based on the discussion of “particle capture member” in at least paragraph 0041 of Applicant’s specification.
“releasable connection mechanism” in claims 2 and 17, because (A) the term “mechanism” is a generic placeholder, see above; (B) “releasably connecting” designates a function performed by the mechanism, and (C) no additional structure is specified, to support the claimed function of “releasably connecting” – in effect the language is equivalent to a predetermined means for releasably connecting. Examiner is interpreting “releasable connection mechanism” to be a combination of a button and snap fit connection based on the discussion of “releasable connection member” in at least paragraph 0039 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 a 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:
“filtering mechanism” in claims 8-10 and 21.
“particle capture member” in claims 2 and 18.
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 § 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 2, 5, 8-11, 13, 17-18, 21, and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cartellone (US6488744) in view of Ni (US11930990).
Regarding claim 2, Cartellone discloses a dust collection system comprising: a vacuum base (Fig. 1 element 10) having a mechanism capable of generating a vacuum (Fig. 1 element 132 and 134, 18:9-11); a dust containment unit (Figs.1 and 11-12 element 50) having an inlet (Fig. 11 element 72) adapted to receive air from a dust-containing environment (15:54-59), a dust flow pathway (Figs. 1 and 11-12 element P), and an orifice (see annotated Fig. 19 below), wherein the orifice is positioned to be in communication with the vacuum base so that the vacuum generated by the vacuum base can be delivered to the dust containment unit, through the dust flow pathway, and to the inlet to cause suction to be applied to the inlet (Fig. 1, the dust flow pathway (P) shows this), and wherein at least a portion of the dust flow pathway creates a centrifugal airflow (Fig. 11); a filtering mechanism (Fig. 2 element 80, 16:29-30) in the dust containment unit and positioned in the dust flow pathway to capture dust drawn through the inlet and contain the captured dust in the dust containment unit (16:23-30); a particle capture member (see annotated Fig. 1 below, where the first wall corresponds to element 62 shown in Fig. 1 and the second wall corresponds to element 56 shown in Fig. 1) in the dust containment unit and positioned to capture particles directed centrifugally outward by the dust flow pathway (Figs. 1 and 11-12, 16:10-22, where “Dirt flange 62, as shown in FIG. 1, and side wall 56 maintain the accumulated particles in a specific region on the base of the low velocity chamber” corresponds to the particle capture member being positioned to capture particles directed centrifugally outward by the dust flow pathway), the particle capture member comprising a U-shaped structure (see annotated Fig. 1 below, where the U-shaped structure is a subset of the particle capture member which encompasses the entirety of the particle capture member) having opposing walls that create an interior space therebetween (see annotated Fig. 1 below, where the first wall and the second wall correspond to opposing walls), the U-shaped structure being positioned to capture the particles within the interior space of the U-shaped structure so that captured particles are separated from the orifice by one of the opposing walls of the U-shaped structure (see annotated Fig. 1 below, 16:10-22, where “Dirt flange 62, as shown in FIG. 1, and side wall 56 maintain the accumulated particles in a specific region on the base of the low velocity chamber” corresponds to the U-shaped structure being positioned to capture the particles within the interior space of the U-shaped structure and annotated Fig. 1 shows that the first wall separates the captured particles from the orifice).
Cartellone fails to disclose a releasable connection mechanism adapted to releasably connect the dust containment unit to the vacuum base, whereby when the dust containment unit contains dust, the dust containment unit can be disconnected from the vacuum base.
Ni is also concerned with a dust collection system and teaches a releasable connection mechanism (Fig. 4 elements 6, 63, 22, and 51) adapted to releasably connect the dust containment unit (Fig. 4 element 2) to the vacuum base (Fig. 4 element 1), whereby when the dust containment unit contains dust, the dust containment unit can be disconnected from the vacuum base (7:52-54 and 6:22-37). 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 collection system of Cartellone to have a releasable connection mechanism as taught by Ni to ensure that the dust containment unit and the vacuum base do not disconnect accidentally during use or transport. This is especially relevant to Cartellone as Cartellone discloses that the vacuum base can be lifted without any structure to make sure that it does not lift accidentally (19:54-20:2).
PNG
media_image1.png
514
589
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
438
1017
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Cartellone, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 2, as described above, and further discloses the inlet is positioned tangentially on the dust collection unit to generate the centrifugal flow (Cartellone, Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 8, Cartellone, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 2, as described above, and further discloses the filtering mechanism includes a filter member (Cartellone, Fig. 2 element 80, 16:29-30, where the filter member is a subset of the filtering mechanism which includes the entirety of the filtering mechanism) with a circumferential shape that surrounds the orifice (Cartellone, Figs. 1 and 2, the opening of the filtering mechanism (80) is a circumferential shape and Fig. 1 shows the filter in a position which surrounds the orifice).
Regarding claim 9, Cartellone, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 2, as described above, and further discloses the filtering mechanism includes a filter member (Cartellone, Fig. 2 element 80, 16:29-30, where the filter member is a subset of the filtering mechanism which includes the entirety of the filtering mechanism) that surrounds the orifice and wherein the filter member has a circumferential shape comprising one or more of a round, circular, oval, ovate, square, rectangle, and polygon (Cartellone, Figs. 1 and 2, the opening of the filtering mechanism (80) is a circumferential, circular shape and Fig. 1 shows the filtering mechanism in a position which surrounds the orifice).
Regarding claim 10, Cartellone, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 2, as described above, and further discloses the filtering mechanism includes a filter member (Cartellone, Fig. 2 element 80, 16:29-30, where the filter member is a subset of the filtering mechanism which includes the entirety of the filtering mechanism) that surrounds the orifice (Cartellone, Fig. 1 shows the filter member in a position which surrounds the orifice) and includes ridges (Cartellone, Fig. 11 element 88, 20:51-57).
Regarding claim 11, Cartellone, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 2, as described above, and further discloses the filter mechanism comprises a HEPA filter (Cartellone, Fig. 2 element 80 where the HEPA filter is a subset of the filtering mechanism which includes the entirety of the filtering mechanism, 16:29-30).
Regarding claim 13, Cartellone, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 2, as described above, and further discloses a hose set (Cartellone, Fig. 1 element H) that is connectable to the inlet (Cartellone, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 17, Cartellone discloses a dust collection system comprising: a vacuum base (Fig. 1 element 10) having a mechanism capable of generating a vacuum (Fig. 1 element 132 and 134, 18:9-11); a dust containment unit (Figs.1 and 11-12 element 50) having an inlet (Fig. 11 element 74) adapted to receive air from a dust-containing environment (15:54-59), a dust flow pathway (Figs. 1 and 11-12 element P), and an orifice (see annotated Fig. 19 above), wherein the orifice is positioned to be in communication with the vacuum base so that the vacuum generated by the vacuum base can be delivered to the dust containment unit, through the dust flow pathway, and to the inlet to cause suction to be applied to the inlet (Fig. 1, the dust flow pathway (P) shows this), and wherein at least a portion of the dust flow pathway creates a centrifugal airflow (Fig. 11), and wherein the inlet is tangentially oriented with respect to the centrifugal airflow so that air flowing through the inlet flows directly into the centrifugal airflow (Fig. 11, where the inlet (74) is tangentially oriented with respect to the curved airflow line shown within element 78 in Fig. 11, where examiner considers that curved airflow line shown within element 78 in Fig. 11 to be the start of the centrifugal airflow); a filtering mechanism (Fig. 2 element 80, 16:29-30) in the dust containment unit and positioned in the dust flow pathway to capture dust drawn through the inlet and contain the captured dust in the dust containment unit (16:23-30); a particle capture member (see annotated Fig. 1 above, where the first wall corresponds to element 62 shown in Fig. 1 and the second wall corresponds to element 56 shown in Fig. 1) in the dust containment unit, wherein the particle capture member has an opening (see annotated Fig. 1’ below) oriented and positioned to receive the centrifugal airflow so that particles directed centrifugally outward by the dust flow pathway flow into the opening and are captured (Figs. 1, 11-12, and see annotated Fig. 1’ below and annotated Fig. 1 above, 16:10-22, where the opening shown in annotated Fig. 1’ below is shown to be below the inlet (74) and airflow traveling from the inlet (74) into the particle capture member shown in annotated Fig. 1 above would travel downwardly through the opening to enter the particle capture member and where “Dirt flange 62, as shown in FIG. 1, and side wall 56 maintain the accumulated particles in a specific region on the base of the low velocity chamber” corresponds to the particles directed centrifugally outward by the dust flow pathway flow into the opening and are captured).
Cartellone fails to disclose a releasable connection mechanism adapted to releasably connect the dust containment unit to the vacuum base, whereby when the dust containment unit contains dust, the dust containment unit can be disconnected from the vacuum base.
Ni is also concerned with a dust collection system and teaches a releasable connection mechanism (Fig. 4 elements 6, 63, 22, and 51) adapted to releasably connect the dust containment unit (Fig. 4 element 2) to the vacuum base (Fig. 4 element 1), whereby when the dust containment unit contains dust, the dust containment unit can be disconnected from the vacuum base (7:52-54 and 6:22-37). 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 collection system of Cartellone to have a releasable connection mechanism as taught by Ni to ensure that the dust containment unit and the vacuum base do not disconnect accidentally during use or transport. This is especially relevant to Cartellone as Cartellone discloses that the vacuum base can be lifted without any structure to make sure that it does not lift accidentally (19:54-20:2).
PNG
media_image3.png
440
1017
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, Cartellone, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 17, as described above, and further discloses the particle capture member comprises a U-shaped structure (see annotated Fig. 1 above, where the U-shaped structure is a subset of the particle capture member which encompasses the entirety of the particle capture member) having opposing walls that create an interior space therebetween (see annotated Fig. 1 above, where the first wall and the second wall correspond to opposing walls), the U-shaped structure being positioned to capture the particles within the interior space of the U-shaped structure so that captured particles are separated from the orifice by one of the opposing walls of the U-shaped structure (see annotated Fig. 1 above, 16:10-22, where “Dirt flange 62, as shown in FIG. 1, and side wall 56 maintain the accumulated particles in a specific region on the base of the low velocity chamber” corresponds to the U-shaped structure being positioned to capture the particles within the interior space of the U-shaped structure and annotated Fig. 1 shows that the first wall separates the captured particles from the orifice).
Regarding claim 21, Cartellone, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 17, as described above, and further discloses the filtering mechanism includes a filter member (Cartellone, Fig. 2 element 80, 16:29-30, where the filter member is a subset of the filtering mechanism which includes the entirety of the filtering mechanism) with a circumferential shape that surrounds the orifice (Cartellone, Figs. 1 and 2, the opening of the filtering mechanism (80) is a circumferential shape and Fig. 1 shows the filter in a position which surrounds the orifice).
Regarding claim 23, Cartellone, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 17, as described above, and further discloses a hose set (Cartellone, Fig. 1 element H) that is connectable to the inlet (Cartellone, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 24, Cartellone, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 2, as described above, and further discloses an opening into the interior space (Cartellone, see annotated Fig. 1’ above and annotated Fig. 1 above), wherein the opening is positioned and oriented to receive the centrifugal airflow (Cartellone, Figs. 1, 11-12, and see annotated Fig. 1’ above and annotated Fig. 1 above, 16:10-22, where the opening shown in annotated Fig. 1’ above is shown to be below the inlet (72) and airflow traveling from the inlet (72) into the particle capture member shown in annotated Fig. 1 above would travel downwardly through the opening to enter the particle capture member).
Regarding claim 25, Cartellone, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 17, as described above, and further discloses the inlet is oriented so that air flowing through the inlet flows directly into the centrifugal airflow without being redirected within the inlet (Cartellone, Fig. 11, where the inlet (74) is tangentially oriented with respect to the curved airflow line shown within element 78 in Fig. 11, where examiner considers that curved airflow line shown within element 78 in Fig. 11 to be the start of the centrifugal airflow, and the air flowing through the inlet (74) is not redirected because the inlet (74) is a straight pipe section).
Claims 3 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cartellone (US6488744) in view of Ni (US11930990) and in further view of Mantes et al. (US20200069126), hereinafter Mantes.
Regarding claim 3, Cartellone, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 2, as described above, but fails to disclose the dust containment unit comprises a plug adapted to seal the inlet when dust is contained within the dust containment unit.
Mantes is also concerned with a dust collection system and teaches the dust containment unit comprises a plug (0027, where cap corresponds to plug) adapted to seal the inlet when dust is contained within the dust containment unit (0027). 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 collection system of Cartellone, as modified, to include a plug adapted to seal the inlet as taught by Mantes because Mantes teaches that the plug allows for sealing of the inlet while the dust collection system is being transported so that the debris does not exit the dust containment unit.
Regarding claim 19, Cartellone, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 17, as described above, but fails to disclose the dust containment unit comprises a plug adapted to seal the inlet when dust is contained within the dust containment unit.
Mantes is also concerned with a dust collection system and teaches the dust containment unit comprises a plug (0027, where cap corresponds to plug) adapted to seal the inlet when dust is contained within the dust containment unit (0027). 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 collection system of Cartellone, as modified, to include a plug adapted to seal the inlet as taught by Mantes because Mantes teaches that the plug allows for sealing of the inlet while the dust collection system is being transported so that the debris does not exit the dust containment unit.
Claims 4 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cartellone (US6488744) in view of Ni (US11930990) and in further view of Nutter et al. (US5037159), hereinafter Nutter.
Regarding claim 4, Cartellone, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 2, as described above, but fails to disclose the dust containment unit is a first dust containment unit and wherein the dust collection system further comprising a second dust containment unit that can replace the first dust containment unit.
Nutter is also concerned with a dust collection system and teaches the dust containment unit is a first dust containment unit and wherein the dust collection system further comprising a second dust containment unit that can replace the first dust containment unit (Abstract and 8:5-57, where container corresponds to a first dust containment unit and a second container corresponds to a second dust containment unit). 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 collection system of Cartellone, as modified, to include two dust containment units as taught by Nutter because providing two dust containment units allows for decreased downtime from having to empty and replace one dust containment unit and also prevents the need of having to empty the dust containment unit, which prevents potential hazardous materials from entering the air. Also, pursuant MPEP 2144.04-VI-B, 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 collection system of Cartellone, as modified, to include two dust containment units as taught by Nutter since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involve only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 20, Cartellone, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 17, as described above, but fails to disclose the dust containment unit is a first dust containment unit and wherein the dust collection system further comprising a second dust containment unit that can replace the first dust containment unit.
Nutter is also concerned with a dust collection system and teaches the dust containment unit is a first dust containment unit and wherein the dust collection system further comprising a second dust containment unit that can replace the first dust containment unit (Abstract and 8:5-57, where container corresponds to a first dust containment unit and a second container corresponds to a second dust containment unit). 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 collection system of Cartellone, as modified, to include two dust containment units as taught by Nutter because providing two dust containment units allows for decreased downtime from having to empty and replace one dust containment unit and also prevents the need of having to empty the dust containment unit, which prevents potential hazardous materials from entering the air. Also, pursuant MPEP 2144.04-VI-B, 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 collection system of Cartellone, as modified, to include two dust containment units as taught by Nutter since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involve only routine skill in the art.
Claims 12 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cartellone (US6488744) in view of Ni (US11930990) and in further view of Liu (US7555809).
Regarding claim 12, Cartellone, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 2, as described above, but fails to disclose the vacuum base comprises a wall attachment.
Liu is also concerned with a dust collection system and teaches the vacuum base comprises a wall attachment (Fig. 2 element 40, 3:19-21 and 3:27-32). 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 collection system of Cartellone, as modified, to include a wall attachment on the vacuum base as taught by Liu to provide flexible storage options and to prevent tripping over the vacuum base during operation.
Regarding claim 22, Cartellone, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 17, as described above, but fails to disclose the vacuum base comprises a wall attachment.
Liu is also concerned with a dust collection system and teaches the vacuum base comprises a wall attachment (Fig. 2 element 40, 3:19-21 and 3:27-32). 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 collection system of Cartellone, as modified, to include a wall attachment on the vacuum base as taught by Liu to provide flexible storage options and to prevent tripping over the vacuum base during operation.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cartellone (US6488744) in view of Nutter et al. (US5037159), hereinafter Nutter.
Regarding claim 14, Cartellone discloses a method of collecting dust, the method comprising: providing a vacuum base (Fig. 1 element 10) having a mechanism capable of generating a vacuum (Fig. 1 element 132 and 134, 18:9-11); releasably connecting a dust containment unit (Figs.1 and 11-12 element 50) to the vacuum base (12:12-14, where reinsertion corresponds to releasably connecting), the dust containment unit having an inlet (Fig. 11 element 72) adapted to receive air from a dust-containing environment (15:54-59), a dust flow pathway (Figs. 1 and 11-12 element P), and an orifice (see annotated Fig. 19 above), wherein the orifice is positioned to be in communication with the vacuum base so that the vacuum generated by the vacuum base can be delivered to the dust containment unit, through the dust flow pathway, and to the inlet to cause suction to be applied to the inlet (Fig. 1, the dust flow pathway (P) shows this), and wherein at least a portion of the dust flow pathway creates a centrifugal airflow (Fig. 11); filtering air flowing through the dust flow pathway to capture dust drawn through the inlet and containing the captured dust in the dust containment unit (17:65-18:8); capturing particles in the dust containment unit by positioning a particle capture member (Figs. 11 and 12 element 78) so that particles are directed centrifugally outward by the dust flow pathway towards the particle capture member (Figs. 11 and 12, 15:62-16:13); and disconnecting the dust containment unit from the vacuum base so that the dust can be disposed of (20:2-6).
Cartellone fails to disclose providing a plug that is sized and shaped to be received within the inlet; inserting the plug into the inlet; disposing the dust containment unit; and connecting a second dust containment unit on the vacuum base.
Nutter is also concerned with a method of collecting dust and providing a plug that is sized and shaped to be received within the inlet (Abstract, 1:65-2:23, and 3:1-11, where the sealable container corresponds to a dust containment unit and the upwardly facing open mouth of the container where the hazardous dust is introduced to the sealable container corresponds to an inlet and a container lid corresponds to a plug); inserting the plug into the inlet (3:39-41); disposing the dust containment unit (8:5-31); and connecting a second dust containment unit on the vacuum base (8:5-31, where a second empty container corresponds to a second dust containment unit). 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 method of Cartellone to insert a plug into the inlet; dispose the dust containment unit; and connect a second dust containment unit on the vacuum base, as taught by Nutter, because Nutter teaches that having to empty a bin (e.g. dust containment unit) unavoidably “causes release of at least some contaminated dust into the surrounding air, which prevents the desired complete decontamination of the area being cleaned” and by disposing the dust containment unit, this problem is avoided and the area can be cleaned properly (1:57-2:2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/1/2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 2, 14, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 2, Applicant argues that examiner’s interpretation of the claimed U-shaped structure (Cartellone, see annotated Fig. 1 above,) does not meet the claimed U-shaped structure as claimed in claim 2 and that the particle capture member (Cartellone, see annotated Fig. 1 above, where the u-shaped structure is a subset of the particle capture member which encompasses the entirety of the particle capture member) is not “positioned to capture particles directed centrifugally outward by the dust flow pathway” (see page 9 of Arguments/Remarks). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds that examiner has provided an interpretation of a particle capture member and u-shaped structure which do meet the claimed limitations of claim 2 and is “positioned to capture particles directed centrifugally outward by the dust flow pathway (Figs. 1 and 11-12, 16:10-22, where “Dirt flange 62, as shown in FIG. 1, and side wall 56 maintain the accumulated particles in a specific region on the base of the low velocity chamber” corresponds to the particle capture member being positioned to capture particles directed centrifugally outward by the dust flow pathway)” (see rejection of claim 2 above). Applicant has not argued against this interpretation and therefore examiner finds this argument unpersuasive.
Regarding claim 17, Applicant argues that Cartellone fails to disclose “a particle capture member with an opening oriented and positioned to receive the centrifugal airflow so that particles directed centrifugally outward by the dust flow pathway flow into the opening”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds that Cartellone does disclose an opening (see annotated Fig. 1’ above) oriented and positioned to receive the centrifugal airflow so that particles directed centrifugally outward by the dust flow pathway flow into the opening and are captured (Figs. 1, 11-12, and see annotated Fig. 1’ above and annotated Fig. 1 above, 16:10-22, where the opening shown in annotated Fig. 1’ above to be below the inlet (74) and airflow traveling from the inlet (74) into the particle capture member shown in annotated Fig. 1 above would travel downwardly through the opening to enter the particle capture member and where “Dirt flange 62, as shown in FIG. 1, and side wall 56 maintain the accumulated particles in a specific region on the base of the low velocity chamber” corresponds to the particles directed centrifugally outward by the dust flow pathway flow into the opening and are captured). See rejection of claim 17 above.
Regarding claim 14, Applicant argues that "There is no reason for a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Cartellone for collecting radioactive concrete dust, and therefore, there is no reason to seal and dispose of the dust collected by Cartellone". Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds that both Cartellone and Nutter are concerned with a method of collecting dust and both Cartellone and Nutter are capable of collecting both hazardous and non-hazardous dust. However, examiner finds that Nutter is not being taught into Cartellone to allow Cartellone to collect hazardous dust. Instead, the motivation which examiner provided on page 18 of the final rejection filed 2/21/2025 and page 20 of the non-final rejection filed 7/1/2025, is that Nutter teaches that "having to empty a bin (e.g. dust containment unit) unavoidably “causes release of at least some contaminated dust into the surrounding air, which prevents the desired complete decontamination of the area being cleaned” and by disposing the dust containment unit, this problem is avoided and the area can be cleaned properly (1:57-2:2)". Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the teachings of Nutter to Cartellone to avoid dust being released and the subsequent re-vacuuming of said dust when emptying the dust containment unit.
Regarding claim 14, Applicant argues that modifying Cartellone with the teachings of Nutter to have a plug to seal the inlet does not meet the claim limitations of claim 14 because Nutter teaches sealing the entire container, not just the inlet and when the plug is installed on the inlet of Nutter, dust can still escape through the outlet of the cannister of Cartellone. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds that, as cited by Applicant, Nutter teaches sealing a container (specifically the inlet of the container) so that “virtually none of the collected hazardous dust will be released” (2:3-4). Examiner finds that “virtually none” indicates that the seal is not perfect and examiner finds that when the cannister of Cartellone is removed from the vacuum base that the filter (80) shown in Fig. 1 would still be resting on top of the cannister and therefore closing the cannister outlet. Examiner further finds that Applicant only claims sealing the inlet of the cannister and that one of ordinary skill in the art would also be motivated to seal the outlet of the cannister using the same teaching of Nutter (i.e. sealing an opening to prevent dust from leaving a cannister) and that applying the teaching of Nutter to the claimed limitation does not prevent the teaching being used to further seal the cannister outlet as well.
Regarding claim 14, Applicant argues that the container lid of Nutter being relied upon by examiner to teach the recited plug fails to disclose “providing a plug that is sized and shaped to be received within the inlet” and “inserting the plug into the inlet”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds that Applicant has merely stated that Nutter fails to teach these limitations without providing any reasoning as to why Nutter fails to teach these limitations. Examiner finds that Nutter does teach providing a plug that is sized and shaped to be received within the inlet (Abstract, 1:65-2:23, and 3:1-11, where the sealable container corresponds to a dust containment unit and the upwardly facing open mouth of the container where the hazardous dust is introduced to the sealable container corresponds to an inlet and a container lid corresponds to a plug) and inserting the plug into the inlet (3:39-41). See rejection of claim 14 above
Regarding claims 2, 14, and 17, Applicant argues that “There is no evidence to suggest that this is a situation where the ordinary artisan could have combined the teachings in a manner that would result in the invention…and there is no evidence to suggest the artisan would have seen the benefit in doing so.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds that examiner has provided a rationale for modification for each rejection of claims 2, 14, and 17. Applicant has not argued against these rationales and therefore examiner finds these arguments unpersuasive.
Regarding claims 2, 14, and 17, Applicant argues that “Applicant has unexpectedly found that advantages discussed throughout the specification.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner was unable to find the specific unexpected results for the limitations of claims 2, 14, and 17 which Applicant has argued and examiner finds that Applicant has not provided any specific passages of the specification in their arguments to support the claim of unexpected results. Therefore, examiner finds these arguments unpersuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bjork (US20200323407) teaches closing a dust containment unit (Fig. 7 element 50), specifically an inlet (Fig. 7 element 74) using a plug (Fig. 7 element 82, 0045) and replacing the dust containment unit (0042-0044).
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 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 on 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