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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 07/25/2025 has been entered. Claims 1 & 5-9 are pending in the application. Claims 2-4 are cancelled.
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because they fail to comply with the following §1.84 sections.
New corrected drawings in compliance with §1.84(l) are required in this application because the line and text quality, in each of the figures, makes it difficult to determine the structure of the claimed invention and prevents satisfactory reproduction characteristics.
It is noted Applicant attempted to overcome the drawing objection by submitting new drawings on 07/25/2025. However, there does not appear to be any quality difference between the 07/25/2025 drawings and the initial drawings. As such, the objection is maintained.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 as follows.
“suction unit” in Claims 1 & 8-9, where the generic placeholder is “unit”, the functional language is “suction”, and sufficient modifying structure is not provided; instant application Page 1, Lines 21-23, describes a suction unit as “a wheeled suction device, for example”, which does not provide sufficient modifying structure; see 112(a) below for clarification
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 & 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to Claims 1 & 8-9, applicant has failed to show possession of the claimed invention by failing to provide sufficient detail needed to understand what the invention is and how it works. Applicant claims a suction unit. This raises questions to what applicant had possession of, in that neither the specification nor the drawings, or a combination thereof, adequately explain the structure of the suction unit.
Instant application Page 1, Lines 21-23, describes the suction unit as “a wheeled suction device, for example”. However, this is not considered sufficient modifying structure, since it is not clear what constitutes “a wheeled suction device”, especially within context of the paragraph the description is provided in. Immediately prior to the description, instant application Page 1, Line 21 describes the use of “mobile sets”. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the wheeled suction device as a mobile suction device on wheels. When considering this, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude sufficient modifying structure describing how the suction unit is capable of providing suction. Therefore, the limitation lacks sufficient written description.
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 & 5-9 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.
As to Claims 1 & 8-9, the limitation “a suction unit”, in Line 2 (or Line 3 or Line 6, respectively), is indefinite. As described above, the only description of the suction unit is in instant application Page 1, Lines 21-23, describing the suction unit as “a wheeled suction device, for example”. However, this does not provide sufficient modifying structure which would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to conclude how the suction unit provides suction, rendering the limitation indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the suction unit will be interpreted broadly as any structure which results in suction.
The limitation “being configured to enable a compressed/pressurized air intake in said air amplifier”, in Lines 21-22 (or Lines 22-23, or Lines 26-27), should read --being configured to enable a compressed/pressurized air intake in each respective air amplifier. This prevents antecedent basis issues, since a single air amplifier was not previously described.
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 & 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Catalfamo (U.S. Patent 5,531,639), in view of Norris (GB2490022A).
As to Claim 1, Catalfamo teaches a pneumatic dust suction device (Figure 1) comprising: a suction unit (13);
a dust (Column 3, Lines 50-53) suction nozzle (see Figure 1 below) connected to (as shown in Figure 1) the suction unit (13); and
at least one air amplification module (3/4) located in (as shown in Figure 1) at least one hose (16/30/31 and the structure show in Figure 1 below) connecting (as shown in Figure 1) said dust (Column 3, Lines 50-53) suction nozzle (see Figure 1 below) to said suction unit (13). See 112(b) rejection above for interpretation clarification.
PNG
media_image1.png
390
783
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Catalfamo Figure 1, Modified by Examiner
Catalfamo does not teach said at least one air amplification module comprises:
at least two air amplifiers operating according to a Coanda effect, said at least two air amplifiers being disposed in parallel within said at least one amplification module;
a base having at least two first bores, called air inlet bores, extending through said base;
a body in which said at least two air amplifiers are formed at least in part, said body comprising for each of said at least two air amplifiers:
a second bore, called air outlet bore, substantially circular or conical, extending from a first side of said body oriented towards said suction nozzle; and
a fillet, extending from said outlet bore and making a junction between walls of said outlet bore and a surface opposite to said first side of said body; and
for each of said at least two air amplifiers, a slot adjacent to said fillet, said slot being configured to enable a compressed/pressurized air intake in said air amplifier.
Norris describes a similar air amplifier system, and teaches said at least one air amplification module (Figure 6) comprises:
at least two air amplifiers (2L/2R) operating according to a Coanda effect (Page 4, Lines 20-21), said at least two air amplifiers (2L/2R) being disposed in parallel (Page 10, Lines 17-20) within (as shown in Figure 6) said at least one amplification module (Figure 6);
a base (see Norris Figure 7 below) having at least two first bores (see Norris Figure 7 below), called air inlet bores, extending through (as shown in Norris Figure 7) said base (see Norris Figure 7 below);
a body (see Norris Figure 7 below) in which said at least two air amplifiers (2L/2R) are formed at least in part (as shown in Norris Figure 7), said body (see Norris Figure 7 below) comprising for each of said at least two air amplifiers (2L/2R):
a second bore (10L/10R), called air outlet bore (this is just a change of nomenclature for the second bores), substantially circular or conical (as shown in Norris Figures 6/7), extending from a first side (the bottom of the body shown in Norris Figure 7 below) of said body (see Norris Figure 7 below)…
a fillet (33L/R), extending from said outlet bore (10L/10R) and making a junction (the junction between 10L/10R and 30L/30R, as viewed in Figure 9) between walls of said outlet bore (10L/10R) and a surface (30L/30R) opposite to (as shown in Norris Figure 7) said first side (the bottom of the body shown in Norris Figure 7 below) of said body (see Norris Figure 7 below); and
for each of said at least two air amplifiers (2L/2R), a slot (35L/R) adjacent to (as shown in Figure 9) said fillet (33L/R), said slot (35L/R) being configured to enable a compressed/pressurized air intake (Norris Page 18, Lines 1-11) in said air amplifier (2L/2R).
Note Page 10, Lines 8-15, describes alternative fluids being used, including gases.
PNG
media_image2.png
434
732
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Norris Figure 7, Modified by Examiner
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the amplification module, as taught by Norris, in place of the amplification modules, as taught by Catalfamo, to increase fluid flow (Page 21, Line 24, to Page 22, Line 2).
Modifying Norris into Catalfamo results in a second bore (Norris 10L/10R), called air outlet bore (this is just a change of nomenclature for the second bores), substantially circular or conical (as shown in Norris Figures 6/7), extending from a first side (the bottom of the body shown in Norris Figure 7 above) of said body (see Norris Figure 7 above) oriented towards (one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to align the Norris inlet and outlets in a similar manner as the Catalfamo inlets and outlets when the Norris amplification module replaces the Catalfamo amplification module) said suction nozzle (see Catalfamo Figure 1 above).
As to Claim 5, Catalfamo, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, and continues to teach said slot (Norris 35) is in fluid communication with (as shown in Norris Figure 7) said first bore (see Norris Figure 7 in the Claim 1 rejection above) and/or said fillet (Norris 33R/L) and with (as shown in Norris Figure 7) a pressurised air chamber (Norris 12L/12R).
As to Claim 6, Catalfamo, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, and Norris continues to teach the width of the slot is a result-effective variable (Norris Page 20, Line 22, to Page 21, Line 7) which affects the energy transfer from the motive fluid to the product fluid, i.e., the air to the dust/air mixture. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(B)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the slot width to be between 0.05 millimeters and 0.1 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. (1955)
As to Claim 7, Catalfamo, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, and continues to teach said fillet (Norris 33R/L) has an opening (the distance from Norris 32L/32R to Norris 24L/24R, as shown in Norris Figure 9, and described on Norris Page 14, Lines 19-27), but is silent on the fillet opening size. As such, Catalfamo, as modified, does not explicitly teach said fillet has an opening comprised between 1 millimeter (mm) and 5 mm.
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to make the fillet opening between 1 millimeter (mm) and 5 mm, since it has been held “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). In the instant case, the device of Catalfamo, as modified, would not operate differently with the claimed opening size, since each of the respective dimensions could also be modified to correlate to the opening size. Further, Applicant has not placed any criticality on the claimed range, indicating the fillet opening is within the claimed range “depending on the dimensions of the air amplifier 21 and the desired performances” on instant application Page 9, Lines 17-21,
As to Claim 8, Catalfamo teaches a sanding system (Figure 1) for a car body workshop (this is considered intended use; see end of paragraph for clarification), comprising:
a pneumatic dust (Abstract) suction device (Figure 1) comprising:
a suction unit (13);
a dust (Column 3, Lines 50-53) suction nozzle (see Catalfamo Figure 1 in the Claim 1 rejection above) connected to (as shown in Figure 1) the suction unit (13); and
at least one air amplification module (3/4) located in (as shown in Figure 1) at least one hose (16/30/31 and the structure show in Catalfamo Figure 1 in the Claim 1 rejection above) connecting (as shown in Figure 1) said dust (Column 3, Lines 50-53) suction nozzle (see Catalfamo Figure 1 in the Claim 1 rejection above) to said suction unit (13)…
a pneumatic (Column 3, Lines 12-15) sander (at least 40/6/7/9/8) connected to (as shown in Figure 1) the pneumatic dust (Abstract) suction device (Figure 1).
The intention to use the system in a particular location is not a patentable limitation, as a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.” Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647; MPEP 2114(II). Also see MPEP 2115. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the Catalfamo sanding system may reasonably be used in a car body workshop.
See 112(b) rejection above for interpretation clarification.
Catalfamo does not teach said at least one air amplification module comprises:
at least two air amplifiers operating according to a Coanda effect, said at least two air amplifiers being disposed in parallel within said at least one amplification module;
a base having at least two first bores, called air inlet bores, extending through said base;
a body in which said at least two air amplifiers are formed at least in part, said body comprising for each of said at least two air amplifiers:
a second bore, called air outlet bore, substantially circular or conical, extending from a first side of said body oriented towards said suction nozzle; and
a fillet, extending from said outlet bore and making a junction between walls of said outlet bore and a surface opposite to said first side of said body; and
for each of said at least two air amplifiers, a slot adjacent to said fillet, said slot being configured to enable a compressed/pressurized air intake in said air amplifier.
Norris describes a similar air amplifier system, and teaches said at least one air amplification module (Figure 6) comprises:
at least two air amplifiers (2L/2R) operating according to a Coanda effect (Page 4, Lines 20-21), said at least two air amplifiers (2L/2R) being disposed in parallel (Page 10, Lines 17-20) within (as shown in Figure 6) said at least one amplification module (Figure 6);
a base (see Norris Figure 7 in the Claim 1 rejection above) having at least two first bores (see Norris Figure 7 in the Claim 1 rejection above), called air inlet bores, extending through (as shown in Norris Figure 7) said base (see Norris Figure 7 in the Claim 1 rejection above);
a body (see Norris Figure 7 in the Claim 1 rejection above) in which said at least two air amplifiers (2L/2R) are formed at least in part (as shown in Norris Figure 7), said body (see Norris Figure 7 in the Claim 1 rejection above) comprising for each of said at least two air amplifiers (2L/2R):
a second bore (10L/10R), called air outlet bore (this is just a change of nomenclature for the second bores), substantially circular or conical (as shown in Norris Figures 6/7), extending from a first side (the bottom of the body shown in Norris Figure 7 in the Claim 1 rejection above) of said body (see Norris Figure 7 in the Claim 1 rejection above)…
a fillet (33L/R), extending from said outlet bore (10L/10R) and making a junction (the junction between 10L/10R and 30L/30R, as viewed in Figure 9) between walls of said outlet bore (10L/10R) and a surface (30L/30R) opposite to (as shown in Norris Figure 7) said first side (the bottom of the body shown in Norris Figure 7 in the Claim 1 rejection above) of said body (see Norris Figure 7 in the Claim 1 rejection above); and
for each of said at least two air amplifiers (2L/2R), a slot (35L/R) adjacent to (as shown in Figure 9) said fillet (33L/R), said slot (35L/R) being configured to enable a compressed/pressurized air intake (Norris Page 18, Lines 1-11) in said air amplifier (2L/2R).
Note Page 10, Lines 8-15, describes alternative fluids being used, including gases.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the amplification module, as taught by Norris, in place of the amplification modules, as taught by Catalfamo, to increase fluid flow (Page 21, Line 24, to Page 22, Line 2).
Modifying Norris into Catalfamo results in a second bore (Norris 10L/10R), called air outlet bore (this is just a change of nomenclature for the second bores), substantially circular or conical (as shown in Norris Figures 6/7), extending from a first side (the bottom of the body shown in Norris Figure 7 in the Claim 1 rejection above) of said body (see Norris Figure 7 in the Claim 1 rejection above) oriented towards (one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to align the Norris inlet and outlets in a similar manner as the Catalfamo inlets and outlets when the Norris amplification module replaces the Catalfamo amplification module) said suction nozzle (see Catalfamo Figure 1 in the Claim 1 rejection above).
As to Claim 9, Catalfamo teaches a facility comprising:
a compressed air supply (Column 3, Line 32); and
at least one sanding system (Figure 1) connected to (via 19) the compressed air supply (Column 3, Line 32),
the at least one sanding system (Figure 1) comprising:
a pneumatic dust (Abstract) suction device (Figure 1) comprising:
a suction unit (13);
a dust (Column 3, Lines 50-53) suction nozzle (see Catalfamo Figure 1 in the Claim 1 rejection above) connected to (as shown in Figure 1) the suction unit (13); and
at least one air amplification module (3/4) located in (as shown in Figure 1) at least one hose (16/30/31 and the structure show in Catalfamo Figure 1 in the Claim 1 rejection above) connecting (as shown in Figure 1) said dust (Column 3, Lines 50-53) suction nozzle (see Catalfamo Figure 1 in the Claim 1 rejection above) to said suction unit (13)…
a pneumatic (Column 3, Lines 12-15) sander (at least 40/6/7/9/8) connected to (as shown in Figure 1) the pneumatic suction device (Figure 1).
The intention to use the system in a particular location is not a patentable limitation, as a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.” Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647; MPEP 2114(II). Also see MPEP 2115. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the Catalfamo sanding system may reasonably be used in a car body workshop.
See 112(b) rejection above for interpretation clarification.
Catalfamo does not teach said at least one air amplification module comprises:
at least two air amplifiers operating according to a Coanda effect, said at least two air amplifiers being disposed in parallel within said at least one amplification module;
a base having at least two first bores, called air inlet bores, extending through said base;
a body in which said at least two air amplifiers are formed at least in part, said body comprising for each of said at least two air amplifiers:
a second bore, called air outlet bore, substantially circular or conical, extending from a first side of said body oriented towards said suction nozzle; and
a fillet, extending from said outlet bore and making a junction between walls of said outlet bore and a surface opposite to said first side of said body; and
for each of said at least two air amplifiers, a slot adjacent to said fillet, said slot being configured to enable a compressed/pressurized air intake in said air amplifier.
Norris describes a similar air amplifier system, and teaches said at least one air amplification module (Figure 6) comprises:
at least two air amplifiers (2L/2R) operating according to a Coanda effect (Page 4, Lines 20-21), said at least two air amplifiers (2L/2R) being disposed in parallel (Page 10, Lines 17-20) within (as shown in Figure 6) said at least one amplification module (Figure 6);
a base (see Norris Figure 7 in the Claim 1 rejection above) having at least two first bores (see Norris Figure 7 in the Claim 1 rejection above), called air inlet bores, extending through (as shown in Norris Figure 7) said base (see Norris Figure 7 in the Claim 1 rejection above);
a body (see Norris Figure 7 in the Claim 1 rejection above) in which said at least two air amplifiers (2L/2R) are formed at least in part (as shown in Norris Figure 7), said body (see Norris Figure 7 in the Claim 1 rejection above) comprising for each of said at least two air amplifiers (2L/2R):
a second bore (10L/10R), called air outlet bore (this is just a change of nomenclature for the second bores), substantially circular or conical (as shown in Norris Figures 6/7), extending from a first side (the bottom of the body shown in Norris Figure 7 in the Claim 1 rejection above) of said body (see Norris Figure 7 in the Claim 1 rejection above)…
a fillet (33L/R), extending from said outlet bore (10L/10R) and making a junction (the junction between 10L/10R and 30L/30R, as viewed in Figure 9) between walls of said outlet bore (10L/10R) and a surface (30L/30R) opposite to (as shown in Norris Figure 7) said first side (the bottom of the body shown in Norris Figure 7 in the Claim 1 rejection above) of said body (see Norris Figure 7 in the Claim 1 rejection above); and
for each of said at least two air amplifiers (2L/2R), a slot (35L/R) adjacent to (as shown in Figure 9) said fillet (33L/R), said slot (35L/R) being configured to enable a compressed/pressurized air intake (Norris Page 18, Lines 1-11) in said air amplifier (2L/2R).
Note Page 10, Lines 8-15, describes alternative fluids being used, including gases.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the amplification module, as taught by Norris, in place of the amplification modules, as taught by Catalfamo, to increase fluid flow (Page 21, Line 24, to Page 22, Line 2).
Modifying Norris into Catalfamo results in a second bore (Norris 10L/10R), called air outlet bore (this is just a change of nomenclature for the second bores), substantially circular or conical (as shown in Norris Figures 6/7), extending from a first side (the bottom of the body shown in Norris Figure 7 in the Claim 1 rejection above) of said body (see Norris Figure 7 in the Claim 1 rejection above) oriented towards (one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to align the Norris inlet and outlets in a similar manner as the Catalfamo inlets and outlets when the Norris amplification module replaces the Catalfamo amplification module) said suction nozzle (see Catalfamo Figure 1 in the Claim 1 rejection above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Drawing Objections. The new drawings are not entered, since the new drawings appear to have the same quality issues as the original drawings, as described in the drawing objection section above.
Regarding the 112(a) rejections, Applicant does not have sufficient support for the suction unit. The only structure provided for the structure unit is a wheeled suction device. However, this could merely mean the suction device is movable via wheels. As such, a wheeled suction device does not provide sufficient modifying structure for the suction unit.
Applicant argues instant application Paragraphs 0046/0047 –note – it appears Applicant is referencing published application Paragraphs 0046/0047—describe how the suction unit operates. It appears Applicant may be intending for the at least one air amplification unit to be part of the claimed suction unit, as described in instant application Paragraph 0048. However, each of the independent claims describe the at least one air amplification module as separate structure from the claimed suction unit. Applicant may be able to overcome the 112(a) rejections by amending the claims to state the claimed suction unit is comprised of the at least one air amplification module.
As the claims currently stand, Examiner must interpret the claimed suction unit as a suction unit which is separate from a suction unit comprised of the at least one air amplification module, since this is the way the claims are written. Applicant does not have support for two suction units.
Regarding the 112(b) rejection, the arguments for the 112(a) rejections above may be applied to the 112(b) rejections.
Regarding the 103 rejections, Applicant argues Catalfamo does not teach specific structure, which Examiner agrees with, as reflected above and the previous rejection. As such, these arguments are moot.
Applicant continues to argue Norris does not teach an additional slot. However, there is no limitation requiring an additional slot, only a single slot. Additionally, Norris 35 is clearly enabled to allow pressurized air into the air amplifier, as shown in Norris Figure 6-9, and considering Norris Page 10, Lines 8-15, which describes alternative fluids being used, including gases.
Applicant continues to argue the intended use of each of the claimed invention and Norris are different. As described in the rejections above, the intended use of the respective apparatuses is not a patentable limitation.
Applicant continues to argue Norris is not analogous art with Catalfamo. Examiner disagrees. Both of the references used compressed air to achieve a desired pressure differential, providing a mixing effect during operation. Catalfamo mixes dust with air, and Norris mixes gas/air with food/dust. As such, both references are considered analogous art.
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 DAVID BRANDT whose telephone number is (303)297-4776. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10-6, MT.
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, Mark Laurenzi can be reached at (571) 270-7878. 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.
/DAVID N BRANDT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746