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 03/27/2026. Claims 1-11 are pending. Previously filed 35 USC 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn, as necessitated by the amendments.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/27/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 7, 9, and 11 are objected to because of the following antecedent basis informalities:
Claim 1, ll. 1, consider amending to, --An assembly for [[the ]]suction of dust generated by [[the ]]friction of—
Claim 1, ll. 5, consider amending to, --without contact between the brush/brush holder assembly and the at least one suction device, and including at—
Claim 2, ll. 1, consider amending to, --The assembly according to claim 1, wherein the at least one suction device—
Claim 7, ll. 2, consider amending to, --has [[the]]a shape of a slot that extends along [[the]]an entire tubular wall on the part of said wall intended—
Claim 9, ll. 1-2, consider amending to, --The assembly according to claim 8, wherein the lip closest to the inner opening is an inner lip including a curved profile ending in a point.--
Claim 11, ll. 3-4, consider amending to, --compartments, and the
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 2-4 and 7-10 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 2 recites the limitation "at least one suction duct connecting said gaseous chambers to at least one suction unit" in ll. 2-3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1, which claim 2 depends from, recites “a suction duct” and “a suction unit.” It is unclear to the Examiner whether “at least one suction duct” and “at least one suction unit” in claim 2 are different suction duct(s) and suction unit(s) from the “suction duct” and “suction unit” introduced in claim 1. As best understood and for examination purposes, claim 2 requires “the suction duct” and “the suction unit”, not “at least one” of each recitation.
Claim 2, ll. 2-3, --includes several gaseous chambers connected to each other, and the suction duct connecting said gaseous chambers to the suction unit, said gaseous chambers allowing to—
Claim 3 recites, “wherein the at least one suction device includes a single gaseous chamber”. However, as best understood from claim 1 (which claim 3 depends from), the at least one suction device includes at least one gaseous chamber. It is unclear whether “a single gaseous chamber” is a different, separate gaseous chamber from the at least one gaseous chamber, or whether the at least one gaseous chamber is a single gaseous chamber. As understood from instant disclosure and for examination purposes, the at least one gaseous chamber (from claim 1) is a single gaseous chamber.
Claim 3, --The assembly according to claim 1, wherein the at least one gaseous chamber is a single gaseous chamber.—
Claim 4 recites the limitation "at least one gaseous passage" in ll. 1-2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As best understood, “at least one gaseous passage” is referring to the same structure of the “gaseous passage” from ll. 15-16 of claim 1. For examination purposes, claim 4 refers to the “gaseous passage” of claim 1 and is not reciting a different, separate “at least one gaseous passage”.
Claim 4, ll. 1, --The assembly according to claim 1, wherein the gaseous—
Claim 7 recites the limitation "at least one collection opening" in ll. 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1, which claim 7 depends from, introduces “a collection opening.” It is unclear whether “at least one collection opening” is a new, separate collection opening from the “collection opening” in claim 1 or whether these collection openings are the same. As best understood and for examination purposes, the at least one collection opening in claim 7 is the same as the collection opening in claim 1.
Claim 7, ll. 1, --The assembly according to claim 1, wherein the collection opening—
Claims 8-9 are rejected accordingly under 35 USC 112(b) since they are dependent on claim 7.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "at least one suction duct" in ll. 1-2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1, which claim 10 depends from, introduces “a suction duct.” It is unclear whether “at least one suction duct” in claim 10 is a new, separate suction duct from the “suction duct” in claim 1 or whether these suction ducts are the same. As best understood and for examination purposes, the at least one suction duct in claim 10 is the same as the suction duct in claim 1.
Claim 10, ll. 1-2, --The assembly according to claim 1, wherein the suction duct has a transverse cross-section that has a greater diameter at a junction with the at least one—
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lofgren (US Patent No. 2,235,224).
Regarding claim 1, Lofgren (US Patent No. 2,235,224) discloses an assembly (embodiment of figs. 4-6) for the suction of dust generated by friction of an end of a brush on a collector at a contact surface, comprising:
at least one suction device (includes items 10, 11, 12; figs. 1 and 4) and a brush/brush holder assembly (includes items 22, 23; fig. 5), said at least one suction device defining an inner opening (item 21; figs. 1 and 4) adapted to receive the end of the brush/brush holder assembly without contact between the brush/brush holder assembly and the at least one suction device (col. 2, ll. 46-55; inner opening 21 is adapted to receive brush and extends adjacent to suction device, i.e. not in direct contact with; fig. 5), and including at least:
at least one gaseous chamber (defined as chamber within item 10; figs. 1 and 4) defined by a tubular wall (walls of item 10; figs. 1 and 4-5) and extending according to a plane so as to form closed ring having an overall ovoid shape (chamber forms a closed ring in ovoid shape; figs. 4 and 6), said ring defining the inner opening (inner walls of gaseous chamber form inner opening 21; figs. 4-6),
a collection opening (item 17; fig. 5) extending longitudinally over a part of the tubular wall (collection opening 17 extends longitudinally over a bottom part of tubular wall; fig. 5), and
a suction duct (item 13; figs. 4-6) intended to connect said at least one gaseous chamber to a suction unit (not explicitly shown, defined as vacuum cleaner; col. 1, ll. 38-41),
wherein a clearance is provided, at the inner opening, between said brush/brush holder assembly and said at least one suction device (defined as space, i.e. gap, between outer surfaces of brush 22, 23 and inner walls of gaseous chamber; fig. 5), the clearance defining a gaseous passage (defined as passage through inner opening 21 into gaseous chamber within tubular walls of item 10; fig. 5; col. 2, ll. 15-22) between said brush/brush holder assembly and said at least one suction device, and
wherein said collection opening is bordered by at least one lip (item 18; figs. 3-5) extending from the gaseous chamber in the direction of the inner opening (at least one lip 18 extends from gaseous chamber, i.e. inner space of gaseous chamber, in the direction of inner opening to allow airflow from inner opening to enter gaseous chamber; fig. 5).
With regard to the recitation “for the suction of dust generated by a friction of an end of a brush on a collector at a contact surface” this recitation has not been given patentable weight because it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim following the claim is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Please refer to MPEP 2111.02.II. Further, in the instant case, the assembly is capable of suctioning dust from a plurality of surfaces including a contact surface of a collector.
Further, the recitations, “a collection opening…intended to face the collector” and “wherein the collection opening is bordered by at least one lip…so as to form a narrow corridor” are considered to be intended use limitations. The applicant is reminded that 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 satisfying the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here; refer to MPEP 2114-II. In the instant case, the collection opening is at the bottom end of the tubular wall, thereby facing the contact surface and intended to face the collector. Additionally, in the instant case, the collection opening bordered by at least one lip forms a narrow corridor to allow airflow from environment into gaseous chamber (defined by airflow in view of fig. 5).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, Lofgren discloses the assembly as claimed in 1, wherein the at least one gaseous chamber is a single gaseous chamber (gaseous chamber within tubular walls 10 encloses inner opening 21 and connects as a single gaseous chamber; figs. 4-5).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, Lofgren discloses the assembly as claimed in 1, wherein the gaseous passage is a free volume of the inner opening separating the brush/brush holder assembly and the at least one suction device (the gaseous passage is a free volume, i.e. space, for airflow to pass through the inner opening 21, thereby separating the brush/brush holder from the suction device in order for airflow to pass through inner opening 21 and into gaseous chamber; defined by arrows of airflow in view of fig. 5).
Regarding claim 5, Lofgren discloses the assembly as claimed in 1, wherein said at least one gaseous chamber extends in the plane so as to have an overall ovoid shape (gaseous chamber extends in the plane with an overall ovoid shape enclosing the inner opening 21; figs. 4 and 6).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Lofgren discloses the assembly as claimed in 1, wherein the collection opening has a shape of a slot (collection opening 17 is a slot on bottom end of tubular wall; fig. 5) that extends along an entire tubular wall on the part of said wall intended to face the connector (collection opening, i.e. slot, extends along entire part, i.e. bottom end, of tubular wall in an ovoid shape; figs. 4-6).
Regarding claim 8, Lofgren discloses the assembly as claimed in 7, wherein the collection opening is bordered by two lips (items 15, 18; figs. 4-6).
Regarding claim 9, Lofgren discloses the assembly as claimed in claim 8, wherein the lip closest to the inner opening is an inner lip (fig. 5) including a curved profile (defined as curved lip 18 extending from gaseous chamber into gaseous chamber to allow smooth airflow from inner opening 21 into gaseous chamber; defined by airflow in view of fig. 5) that ends in a point (defined as point at end of lip within gaseous chamber; fig. 5).
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, Lofgren discloses the assembly as claimed in 1, wherein the suction duct has a transverse cross section that has a greater diameter at a junction with the at least one gaseous chamber (designated in annotated fig. 4 below; a transverse cross-section at a junction between suction duct 13 and gaseous chamber within walls of item 10 is greater than transverse cross-section of suction duct 13).
PNG
media_image1.png
184
318
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4.
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 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lofgren (US Patent No. 2,235,224) in view of Davis (US Patent No. 2,280,751).
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Lofgren discloses the assembly as claimed in 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one suction device includes several gaseous chambers connected to each other, and the suction duct connecting said gaseous chambers to the suction unit, said gaseous chambers allowing to simultaneously suck up the dust generated by the friction of several brushes on several slip rings.
However, Davis (US Patent No. 2,280,751) teaches a suction device comprising a several gaseous chambers (items 17, 18, 21, 22; fig. 2) enclosing an inner opening (defined as central opening within suction device in view of figs. 2-3), wherein the several gaseous chambers are connected to each other (fig. 3; via suction duct), and at least one suction duct connecting said gaseous chambers to at least one suction duct (corresponding to suction duct 13 and suction unit in Lofgren), said gaseous chambers allowing to simultaneously suck up the dust generated by the friction of several brushes on several slip rings (gaseous chambers are capable of simultaneously sucking up dust along several brushes on several slip rings).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the suction device, as disclosed in Lofgren, to include several gaseous chambers connected to one another, as taught in Davis, in order for the device to uniformly suction dust and debris off the contact surface which is desirable to perform effective cleaning on the surface (Davis; col. 2, ll. 59-66).
Regarding claim 11, Lofgren discloses the assembly as claimed in claim 1,but does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one gaseous chamber includes several gaseous chambers separated into several compartments, and the suction duct connecting each gaseous chamber to the suction unit, said gaseous chambers allowing to simultaneously suck up the dust generated by the friction of several brushes on several slip rings.
However, Davis (US Patent No. 2,280,751) teaches a suction device comprising a several gaseous chambers (items 17, 18, 21, 22; fig. 2) enclosing an inner opening (defined as central opening within suction device in view of figs. 2-3), wherein the several gaseous chambers separated into several compartments (via walls, i.e. items 19; figs. 2-3), and at least one suction duct connecting each gaseous chambers to at least one suction unit (each gaseous chambers leads into suction duct and are connected to at least one suction unit; corresponding to suction duct 13 and suction unit in Lofgren), said gaseous chambers allowing to simultaneously suck up the dust generated by the friction of several brushes on several slip rings (gaseous chambers are capable of simultaneously sucking up dust along several brushes on several slip rings).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the suction device, as disclosed in Lofgren, to include several gaseous chambers separated into compartments and connected to a suction duct via a suction unit, as taught in Davis, in order for the device to uniformly suction dust and debris off the contact surface which is desirable to perform effective cleaning on the surface (Davis; col. 2, ll. 59-66).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lofgren (US Patent No. 2,235,224) in view of Vasseur (US 2012/0324673).
Regarding claim 6, Lofgren discloses the assembly as claimed in 1, wherein said at least one gaseous chamber can be divided into several compartments (defined as upper and lower compartments in view of fig. 4). Lofgren does not explicitly disclose wherein each compartment has a suction duct.
However, Vasseur (US 2012/0324673) teaches an assembly having at least one suction device (includes items 4, 10, 12, 14’, fig. 1) and a brush/brush holder assembly (item 1; fig. 1), said at least one suction device defining an inner opening (item 13; pp. [0053]; fig. 2) adapted to receive brush/brush holder assembly (pp. [0053]; fig. 1), and including at least one gaseous chamber (item 12) defined by tubular wall (pp. [0057]; fig. 2), a collection opening (defined as opening at bottom of gaseous chamber; pp. [0055]), and wherein the gaseous chamber is divided into several compartments (defined as upper and lower ends of gaseous chamber in view of fig. 2), wherein each component has a suction duct (two corresponding suction units 14 for upper and lower components; fig. 2).
Both Lofgren and Vasseur disclose suction duct means for an assembly. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to substitute the singular suction duct, as disclosed in Lofgren, for the two suction ducts on upper and lower ends, i.e. compartments, of the gaseous chamber, as taught in Vasseur, to achieve the predictable result of applying suction to the contact surface and collecting dirt from the surface. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have two suction ducts, as taught in Vasseur, in order to permit suction flow to be concentrated more effectively (pp. [0026] in Vasseur).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. As necessitated by the amendments, as new ground of rejection is made in view of Lofgren (US Patent No. 2,235,224).
Further, the previous primary reference, Vasseur (US 2012/0324673), from Final Rejection filed on 12/02/2025 is used as a teaching reference for subject matter not previously challenged in the argument(s). Lastly, the previous teaching reference, Davis (US patent No. 2,280,751), from Final Rejection filed on 12/02/2025 is used as a teaching reference in above rejection(s) for claims 2 and 11, which were not specifically challenged in the argument(s).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sawalski (US 2006/0213025) discloses an assembly for the suction of dust, comprising at least one suction device and a brush/brush holder assembly, said at least one device defining an inner opening adapted to receive an end of the brush/brush holder assembly without contact between the brush/brush holder assembly and the at least one suction device, and including at least one gaseous chamber defined by a tubular wall, a collection opening intended to face the surface, and a suction duct, and wherein a clearance is provided between said brush/brush holder assembly and the at least one suction device to define a gaseous passage between said brush/brush holder assembly and said at least one suction device, and wherein said collection opening is bordered by at least one lip.
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
