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 Examiner acknowledges the amendments. The previous rejections are withdrawn. New rejections are set forth herein and are made final.
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, 3-6, 8-10, 12, 13, 15, 17-18, 21, 23, 40, 43-45, and 47-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowles (US 3,075,227) in view of Rose (US 4,037,290).
Regarding claim 1, Bowles discloses a particle collection system comprising:
a collection inlet (Item 14) aimable at a surface from which particles are to be collected; and
a pair of nozzles (Item 26) positioned radially about the collection inlet also aimable at the surface and fluidly connected to a source of compressed fluid in order to dislodge particles from the surface;
wherein in operation of the system, a vortex dislodging and picking up particles on the surface (Column 4 Lines 5-17), entraining the particles within the vortex between the nozzles, and carrying the particles to the collection inlet positioned between the nozzles (Figure 2).
Bowles fails to explicitly disclose a rotatable fixture including at least a pair of nozzles positioned radially about the collection inlet also aimable at the surface and fluidly connected to a source of compressed fluid in order to dislodge particles from the surface;
Rose teaches a collection system wherein in operation of the system, the rotatable fixture generates, as the nozzles rotate about the collection inlet and expel the compressed fluid (Items 75, 76, and 106). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stationary nozzles of Bowles with the rotatable nozzles of Rose. Rose goes on to discuss how “the primary object of the invention is to provide a highly effective means for agitating the particles on the floor surface that are to be removed by the suction stream.” And to “actuate an air jet nozzle inside the traveling hood in a manner conducive to effective coverage of the floor surface” (Column 1 Lines 41-58).
Regarding claim 3 and 12, Bowles in view of Rose disclose the system of claim 1 further including a vacuum source fluidly connected to the collection inlet (Bowles Items 17 and 18).
Regarding claim 4, Bowles in view of Rose disclose the system of claim 3 in which the source of compressed fluid includes an exhaust of the vacuum source (Bowles Item 20).
Regarding claim 5, Bowles in view of Rose disclose the system of claim 1 in which the collection inlet is connected to a conduit and the rotatable fixture rotates about the conduit via sealed bearings (Rose Item 113 and 87).
Regarding claim 6 and 13, Bowles in view of Rose disclose the system of claim 1 in which at least one of: there are an even number of nozzles in pairs opposing each other (Bowles Figure 3);
Regarding claim 8 and 15, Bowles in view of Rose disclose the system of claim 1 in which the collection inlet defines an axis perpendicular to the surface and the nozzles are angled inwardly with respect to said axis (Bowles Figures 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 9, Bowles in view of Rose disclose the system of claim 1 further including a filter token associated with the collector inlet (Bowles Item 21).
Regarding claim 10, Bowles discloses a particle collection method comprising:
aiming a collection inlet at a surface from which particles are to be collected (Item 14);
aiming at least a pair of nozzles positioned radially about the collection inlet at the surface (Fig 2 and 3 Item 26);
providing a compressed fluid to the nozzles in order to dislodge particles from the surface (Column 3 Liens 60-70); and
the nozzles about the collection inlet while expelling the compressed fluid to generate a vortex dislodging and picking up particles on the surface, entraining the particles within the vortex between the nozzles, and carrying the particles to the collection inlet positioned between the nozzles (Column 3 Line 70-Column 4 Line17).
Bowles fails to explicitly disclose rotating the nozzles about the collection inlet while expelling the compressed fluid.
Rose teaches a collection system wherein rotating the nozzles about the collection inlet while expelling the compressed fluid (Items 75, 76, and 106). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stationary nozzles of Bowles with the rotatable nozzles of Rose. Rose goes on to discuss how “the primary object of the invention is to provide a highly effective means for agitating the particles on the floor surface that are to be removed by the suction stream.” And to “actuate an air jet nozzle inside the traveling hood in a manner conducive to effective coverage of the floor surface” (Column 1 Lines 41-58).
Regarding claim 17, Bowles in view of Rose disclose the method of claim 10 in which the compressed fluid includes a carrier gas and a metastable species (the compressed air of Bowles is a carrier gas with metastable species since there is no level of filtration at the particle level).
Regarding claim 18, Bowles in view of Rose disclose the method of claim 10 further including providing relative motion between the surface and the collection inlet (a user can move Bowles by Item 23).
Regarding claim 21, Bowles in view of Rose disclose the method of claim 10 further including adjusting at least one of: a distance of the nozzles from the collection inlet (Rose Column 5 Lines 47-54); and an aiming angle of the nozzles relative to the surface.
Regarding claim 23, Bowles in view of Rose disclose the method of claim 10 further including sensing a distance from the collection inlet to the surface (a user can visually detect the distance between the surface and the nozzle of Bowles or Rose).
Regarding claim 40, Bowles in view of Rose disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the nozzles are at least one of:
configured to rotate around a rotation axis defined along a longitudinal length of the collection inlet , said rotation axis being adjustable in angle relative to the surface from which particles are to be collected (Bowles Figures 2 and 3 and Rose Figure 3 Column 5 Lines 30-35);
configured to rotate in a plane at least partially above or at least partially laterally adjacent to the collection inlet (Bowles Figures 2 and 3 and Rose Figure 3); and
positioned radially distal from the collection inlet such that the nozzles do not reside within a footprint of the collection inlet, said footprint extending from the collection inlet to the surface from which particles are to be collected (Bowles Figures 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 43, Bowles in view of Rose disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the collection inlet is adjustably aimable at the surface from which particles are to be collected (a user can move Bowles or Rose is adjustable).
Regarding claim 44, Bowles in view of Rose disclose the system of claim 43, wherein the collection inlet is configured to be positioned directly over the surface from which particles are to be collected (above the surface intended to be cleaned).
Regarding claim 45, Bowles in view of Rose disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the nozzles are not contained within any housing (the bottom is open on Bowles which appears to be the same as the vacuum cleaner embodiment of the instant application).
Regarding claim 47, Bowles in view of Rose disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the nozzles are held at a fixed distance relative to one another and the collection inlet (as shown in Figure 3 or Rose, the nozzle is held in place by bolts).
Regarding claim 48, Bowles in view of Rose disclose the system of claim 1, wherein in operation of the system, the collection inlet is positioned more proximal to the surface than the nozzles (Bowles Item 28 is lower than Item 26).
Regarding claim 49, Bowles in view of Rose disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the nozzles are aimed at an inward angle towards a central axis of the vortex and the collection inlet (Bowles Column 4 Lines 25-32 or Rose Column 5 Lines 30-35).
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowles (US 3,075,227) in view of Rose (US 4,037,290) in view of Halls (US 4,191,589).
Regarding claim 2 ,11, Bowles in view of Rose disclose the system of claim 1. Bowles fails to explicitly disclose in which the rotatable fixture includes an outwardly extending arm for each nozzle and carrying compressed fluid to the nozzles.
Halls teaches a collection system wherein the rotatable fixture includes an outwardly extending arm (Item 22) for each nozzle and carrying compressed fluid to the nozzles (Figures 2, 3 and 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply substitute the single arm of Rose for the plurality of arms as taught by Hall. Hall discusses how the number of nozzles is an obvious variant (Column 4 Lines 16-57). Thus one skilled in the art would come to the predictable conclusion of having an arm for each nozzle would properly support each nozzle as the assembly rotates.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowles (US 3,075,227) in view of Rose (US 4,037,290) in view of Matsuyo (US 5,144,715)
Regarding claim 16, Bowles in view of Rose disclose the method of claim 10. Bowles fails to explicitly disclose further including analyzing the collected particles.
Matsuyo teaches a cleaner including analyzing the collected particles (Item 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bowles to detect the amount of dust coming through the vortex as taught by Matsuyo. Such a modification would allow a controller to control a suction motor to run at the appropriate power level, thus optimizing the cleaning being performed (Matsuyo Column 6 Lines 65- Column 7 Line 24).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowles (US 3,075,227) in view of Rose (US 4,037,290) in view of Rippl (US 2007/0079470)
Regarding claim 19, Bowles in view of Rose disclose the method of claim 10. Bowles fails to explicitly disclose further including ionizing the surface environment.
Rippl teaches a cleaner including ionizing the surface environment (Paragraph 68). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bowles to include the ionizer as taught by Rippl. Such a modification is discussed being beneficial in removing small pollutants that can harbor toxic chemical and disease organisms (Rippl Paragraph 68).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowles (US 3,075,227) in view of Rose (US 4,037,290) in view of Babcock (US 3,489,607)
Regarding claim 20, Bowles in view of Rose disclose the method of claim 10 further including heating the fluid (the motor of Bowles heats the fluid).
Babcock teaches a similar system as Bowles, wherein the cleaner circulates a fluid blasted at a surface, then sucked back into a vacuum pump. Babcock discusses how this fluid tends to become very warm because of the vacuum pump (Column 3 Line 65-Column 4Line 13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bowles to include the heat exchanger means as taught by Babcock. Babcock further discusses how allergens can be brought out with an increased temperature (Column 4 Lines 7-13).
Claims 24-25 and 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowles (US 3,075,227) in view of Rose (US 4,037,290) in view of Lee (US 2019/0239710)
Regarding claim 24 and 32, Bowles discloses a particle collection system comprising:
a collection inlet (Item 14) aimable at a surface from which particles are to be collected; and
a pair of nozzles (Item 26) positioned radially about the collection inlet also aimable at the surface and fluidly connected to a source of compressed fluid in order to dislodge particles from the surface;
wherein in operation of the system, a vortex dislodging and picking up particles on the surface (Column 4 Lines 5-17), entraining the particles within the vortex between the nozzles, and carrying the particles to the collection inlet positioned between the nozzles (Figure 2).
Bowles fails to explicitly disclose a rotatable fixture including at least a pair of nozzles positioned radially about the collection inlet also aimable at the surface and fluidly connected to a source of compressed fluid in order to dislodge particles from the surface;
Rose teaches a collection system wherein in operation of the system, the rotatable fixture generates, as the nozzles rotate about the collection inlet and expel the compressed fluid (Items 75, 76, and 106). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stationary nozzles of Bowles with the rotatable nozzles of Rose. Rose goes on to discuss how “the primary object of the invention is to provide a highly effective means for agitating the particles on the floor surface that are to be removed by the suction stream.” And to “actuate an air jet nozzle inside the traveling hood in a manner conducive to effective coverage of the floor surface” (Column 1 Lines 41-58).
Bowles further fails to explicitly disclose a distance sensor for measuring a distance from the collection inlet to the surface; and a controller subsystem, responsive to the distance sensor, configured to adjust the adjustable nozzles based on the distance from the collection inlet to the surface.
Lee teaches a cleaner wherein a distance sensor (Paragraph 75, Item 130) for measuring a distance from the collection inlet to the surface; and a controller subsystem (Item 5), responsive to the distance sensor, configured to adjust the adjustable nozzles based on the distance from the collection inlet to the surface (Paragraph 157-159). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bowles in view of Rose to include a controller and distance sensor as taught by Lee. Such a modification would allow the cleaner to change in height (a manual process as taught by Rose). Converting a manual process to be automatic has been held to be of routine by one skilled in the art (see MPEP 2144.04). Further in Paragraph 159, Lee taches that by changing the height of the nozzle, the cleaning performance can be optimized.
Regarding claim 25 and 33, Bowles in view of Rose in view of Lee disclose the system of claim 24 in which the controller subsystem is configured to adjust at least one of: an angle of the nozzles relative to the surface; a distance of the nozzles to the surface; and a distance of the nozzles from the collection inlet (Lee Paragraph 157-159).
Claims 24, 28-32, and 36-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowles (US 3,075,227) in view of Rose (US 4,037,290) in view of Cornelissen (DE102018119181).
Regarding claim 24 and 32, Bowles discloses a particle collection system comprising:
a collection inlet (Item 14) aimable at a surface from which particles are to be collected; and
a pair of nozzles (Item 26) positioned radially about the collection inlet also aimable at the surface and fluidly connected to a source of compressed fluid in order to dislodge particles from the surface;
wherein in operation of the system, a vortex dislodging and picking up particles on the surface (Column 4 Lines 5-17), entraining the particles within the vortex between the nozzles, and carrying the particles to the collection inlet positioned between the nozzles (Figure 2).
Bowles fails to explicitly disclose a rotatable fixture including at least a pair of nozzles positioned radially about the collection inlet also aimable at the surface and fluidly connected to a source of compressed fluid in order to dislodge particles from the surface;
Rose teaches a collection system wherein in operation of the system, the rotatable fixture generates, as the nozzles rotate about the collection inlet and expel the compressed fluid (Items 75, 76, and 106). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stationary nozzles of Bowles with the rotatable nozzles of Rose. Rose goes on to discuss how “the primary object of the invention is to provide a highly effective means for agitating the particles on the floor surface that are to be removed by the suction stream.” And to “actuate an air jet nozzle inside the traveling hood in a manner conducive to effective coverage of the floor surface” (Column 1 Lines 41-58).
Bowles further fails to explicitly disclose a distance sensor for measuring a distance from the collection inlet to the surface; and a controller subsystem, responsive to the distance sensor, configured to adjust the adjustable nozzles based on the distance from the collection inlet to the surface.
Cornelissen teaches a cleaner wherein a distance sensor (Item 17) for measuring a distance from the collection inlet to the surface; and a controller subsystem (29), responsive to the distance sensor, configured to adjust the adjustable nozzles based on the distance from the collection inlet to the surface (Paragraph 14-16 and 32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bowles in view of Rose to include a controller and distance sensor as taught by Cornelissen. Such a modification would allow the cleaner to control the suction/nozzle motor of Bowles and the agitation motor of Rose. Cornelissen further discusses that when the cleaner is not in contact with the surface to be cleaned, power can be saved by reducing all the motors to a lower speed or to a stop (Paragraph 25 and 32).
It is the Examiner’s opinion that Cornelissen teaches a cleaner that controls two motors when the cleaner is lifted off the surface intended to be cleaned. Although the rotating motor of Rose is different than the brush motor of Conelissen, both motors can be controlled by a controller and both are to deliver agitation to a surface intended to be cleaned.
Regarding claim 28 and 36, Bowles in view of Rose in view of Cornelissen disclose the system of claim 24 in which the controller subsystem is further configured to adjust a rate of rotation of the nozzles based on the distance of the collection inlet to the surface by controlling the subsystem rotatable fixture (Cornelissen Paragraph 14-16 and 25 discuss how a brush roll for agitation can be stopped to conserve power when lifted off a surface).
Regarding claim 29 and 37, Bowles in view of Rose in view of Cornelissen disclose the system of claim 24 in which the controller subsystem is further configured to adjust a pressure of the compressed fluid by controlling the source of pressurized fluid (Cornelissen Paragraph 32 discusses reducing or stopping the suction motor).
Regarding claim 30 and 38, Bowles in view of Rose in view of Cornelissen disclose the system of claim 24 further including a vacuum source fluidly connected to the collection inlet (Bowles Item 17 and 18).
Regarding claim 31 and 39, Bowles in view of Rose in view of Cornelissen disclose the system of claim 30 in which the controller subsystem is further configured to adjust a vacuum pressure at the collection inlet by controlling the vacuum source (Cornelissen Paragraph 32 discusses reducing or stopping the suction motor).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 10, 24 and 32 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.
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 TOM R RODGERS whose telephone number is (313)446-4849. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8AM-5PM EST.
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, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. 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.
/TOM RODGERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights