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 .
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 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.
Status of Claims
Below is the Final Action on the Merit for Claims 1 – 20.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy as the Priority Document exchange failed on 02/6/2024.
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.
Claims 1, 4 – 5, 9 – 11, 14 – 15 and 19 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suzuki (JP2004135700 A).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Suzuki teaches a dust-air separation device (dust separation unit, 8; Fig. 3) comprising: a housing (separating body, 10; Fig. 3) having an air inlet channel (introduction section, 20; Fig. 3); a cyclone separation chamber (cylinder bodies, 11a and b; Fig. 3); and a dust collection chamber (dust collection section, 30) formed therein (Fig. 3); wherein the air inlet channel (20) and the dust collection chamber (30) are both connected to the cyclone separation chamber and an air outlet (airflow outlet, 35; Fig. 5) is formed on the housing (Fig. 3); wherein the cyclone separation chamber (Fig. 3) further comprises a first separator (11a), a second separator (11b), an air deflector (guide wall, 17) located between the first separator (11a) and the second separator (11b) on an inner peripheral wall of the cyclone separation chamber (Fig. 4) along the direction of an airflow in the cyclone separation chamber (Fig. 4); wherein the first separator (11a) and the second separator (11b) are both connected to the air outlet (airflow outlet, 35; Fig. 7C); wherein the first separator (11a), the second separator (11b) and the air reflector (17) are provided in the cyclone separator chamber (Fig. 3) defining the inner peripheral wall (Annotated Fig. 7).
PNG
media_image1.png
392
592
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, Suzuki teaches the dust-air separation device (dust separation unit, 8; Fig. 3) wherein the dust-air separation device (8) further comprises a connecting column (formed by walls 12a and 12b; Fig. 7B) formed with a connecting hole (@ A; Fig. 7B) within the connecting column, the first separator (11a) and the second separator (11b) being mounted on opposite ends of the connecting column and both connecting to the connecting hole; the connecting column being mounted on the air deflector (17), the interior of the air deflector (17) forming an exhaust channel (E; Fig. 7A), and the exhaust channel connecting to the air outlet and the connecting hole (Fig. 7C).
Regarding Claim 5, Suzuki teaches the dust-air separation device (dust separation unit, 8; Fig. 3) wherein the dust-air separation device (8) further comprises a partition (guide, 36) mounted within the connecting hole (Fig. 5) which divides the connecting hole into a first hole segment (12a) that connects to the first separator (11a) and the exhaust channel and a second hole segment (12b) that connects to the second separator (11b) and the exhaust channel (Fig. 7C).
Regarding Claim 9, Suzuki teaches the dust-air separation device (dust separation unit, 8; Fig. 3) wherein the cyclone separation chamber (Fig. 5) is formed with a dust outlet (15a and b) connected to the dust collection chamber (30) such that the opposite sides of the dust outlet along the axial direction of the cyclone separation chamber are flush with both ends of the cyclone separation chamber (Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 10, Suzuki teaches the dust-air separation device (dust separation unit, 8; Fig. 3) wherein the dust outlet (15 a and b) is a U- shaped structure with a downward facing opening (Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 11, Suzuki teaches the dust-air separation device (dust separation unit, 8; Fig. 3) wherein the dust-air separation device (8) further comprises at least two dust outlets (15a and b) and the at least two dust outlets are distributed axially along the cyclone separation chamber (Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 14, Suzuki teaches the dust-air separation device (dust separation unit, 8; Fig. 3) wherein the outer surface of the first separator (11a) and the outer surface of the second separator (11b) of the dust-air separation device are curved surfaces (Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 15, Suzuki teaches the dust-air separation device (dust separation unit, 8; Fig. 3) wherein the first separator (11a) and the second separator (11b) are in the shape of a semi-ellipse (Fig. 3).
Regarding Independent Claim 19, Suzuki teaches a dust-air separation device (dust separation unit, 8; Fig. 3) comprising: a housing (separating body, 10; Fig. 3) having an air inlet channel (introduction section, 20; Fig. 3); a cyclone separation chamber (cylinder bodies, 11a and b; Fig. 3); and a dust collection chamber (dust collection section, 30) formed therein (Fig. 3); wherein the air inlet channel (20) and the dust collection chamber (30) are both connected to the cyclone separation chamber and an air outlet (airflow outlet, 35; Fig. 5) is formed on the housing (Fig. 3); wherein the cyclone separation chamber (Fig. 3) further comprises a first separator (11a), a second separator (11b), and a connecting column (formed by walls 12a and 12b; Fig. 7B) formed with a connecting hole (@ A; Fig. 7B) within the connecting column; the first separator (11a) and the second separator (11b) being mounted on opposite ends of the connecting column and both are connected to the connecting hole (Fig. 7B); an air deflector (17) is located between the first separator (11a) and the second separator (11b) on an inner peripheral wall (Annotated Fig. 7) of the cyclone separation chamber; wherein the first separator (11a), the second separator (11b) and the air reflector (17) are provided in the cyclone separator chamber (Fig. 3) defining the inner peripheral wall (Annotated Fig. 7) wherein the connecting hole (@ A; Fig. 7B) is connected to the air outlet (airflow outlet, 35; Fig. 7C).
Regarding Claim 20, Suzuki teaches the dust-air separation device (dust separation unit, 8; Fig. 3) wherein the dust-air separation device (8) further comprises an air deflector (17) located between the first separator (11a) and the second separator (11b) on an inner peripheral wall of the cyclone separation chamber (Fig. 7B); wherein the connecting column (formed by walls 12a and 12b; Fig. 7B) being mounted on the air deflector (17) and the interior of the air deflector form an exhaust channel (Fig. 7B), and the exhaust channel connects to the air outlet (airflow outlet, 35; Fig. 7C) and the connecting hole (@ A; Fig. 7B).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2 – 3, 6 – 8, 12 – 13 and 16 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (JP2004135700 A).
Regarding Claim 2, Suzuki teaches the dust-air separation device according to Claim 1, as discussed above.
Suzuki does not explicitly teach wherein the thickness of the air deflector increases along a direction of airflow within the cyclone separation chamber.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Suzuki to further include the thickness of the air deflector increases along a direction of airflow within the cyclone separation chamber, as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 3, Suzuki teaches the dust-air separation device (dust separation unit, 8; Fig. 3) wherein a plane (plane of 40 as shown in Fig. 4) perpendicular to an axis of the cyclone separation chamber (11a and b) is an auxiliary plane on which an auxiliary line is provided (Fig. 4), the auxiliary line also being perpendicular to an axis of the air inlet channel (20; Fig. 4); a projection line of an air intake edge (13a) of the air deflector (17) on the auxiliary plane (plane of 40; Fig. 4) is offset from the auxiliary line at an angle ranging from 300 to 1200.
Suzuki does not explicitly teach the auxiliary plane is offset from the auxiliary line at an angle ranging from 30° to 120°; however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Suzuki to further include the auxiliary plane is offset from the auxiliary line at an angle ranging from 30° to 120°, as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size/angle of a component. A change in size/angle is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 6, Suzuki teaches the dust-air separation device according to Claim 5, as discussed above.
Suzuki does not explicitly teach a ratio of the projected area of the partition along the axial direction of the connecting hole to the cross- sectional area of the connecting hole is greater than 0.75; however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Suzuki to further include a ratio of the projected area of the partition along the axial direction of the connecting hole to the cross- sectional area of the connecting hole is greater than 0.75, as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size/area of a component. A change in size/area is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 7, Suzuki teaches the dust-air separation device (dust separation unit, 8; Fig. 3) wherein the air inlet channel (20) is further comprised of opposite side walls (Fig. 5) and an air outlet end (35) along the axial direction of the cyclone separation chamber (11a and b).
Suzuki does not explicitly teach the side walls increase in distance from each other along the direction of the airflow.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Suzuki to further include the side walls increase in distance from each other along the direction of the airflow, as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 8, Suzuki teaches the dust-air separation device according to Claim 7, as discussed above.
Suzuki does not explicitly teach the opposite side walls of the air outlet end of the air inlet channel expand outward in an oblique circular arc.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Suzuki to further include the opposite side walls of the air outlet end of the air inlet channel expand outward in an oblique circular arc, as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 12, Suzuki teaches the dust-air separation device (dust separation unit, 8; Fig. 3) wherein the housing (Fig. 5) comprises an air outlet plate (40) and a dust cup (first filter, 50 and second filter, 60); the air outlet plate (40) is detachably mounted on the dust cup (50, 60) and surrounds the dust cup (50, 60) to form the cyclone separation chamber (11a and b), the air deflector (17) is mounted on the air outlet plate (40), and, the air outlet (35) is formed on the air outlet plate (Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 13, Suzuki teaches the dust-air separation device (dust separation unit, 8; Fig. 3) wherein the dust-air separation device also comprises a locking mechanism (frame portions, 51 and 61), one end of the air outlet plate (40) is rotatably connected with the dust cup (50 and 60), and the other end of the air outlet plate is connected with the dust cup through the locking mechanism (frame portions, 51 and 61 connect with 50 and 60 in the plate, 40).
Regarding Independent Claim 16, Suzuki teaches a vacuum cleaner comprising: a dust-air separation device (dust separation unit, 8; Fig. 3) comprising: a housing (separating body, 10; Fig. 3) having an air inlet channel (introduction section, 20; Fig. 3); a cyclone separation chamber (cylinder bodies, 11a and b; Fig. 3); and a dust collection chamber (dust collection section, 30) formed therein (Fig. 3); wherein the air inlet channel (20) and the dust collection chamber (30) are both connected to the cyclone separation chamber and an air outlet (airflow outlet, 35; Fig. 5) is formed on the housing (Fig. 3); wherein the cyclone separation chamber (Fig. 3) further comprises a first separator (11a), a second separator (11b), an air deflector (guide wall, 17) located between the first separator (11a) and the second separator (11b) on an inner peripheral wall of the cyclone separation chamber (Fig. 4); wherein the first separator (11a) and the second separator (11b) are both connected to the air outlet (35); wherein the first separator (11a), the second separator (11b) and the air reflector (17) are provided in the cyclone separator chamber (Fig. 3) defining the inner peripheral wall (Annotated Fig. 7) and a handheld device (electric vacuum cleaner can be held in hand of user), comprising an outer housing (Fig. 1), an air inlet filter (50 and 60), a motor (electric motor section, 9a), an impeller (fan section, 9b) and an air outlet filter (70); an air duct (6/7) is formed in the outer housing (1), wherein the air inlet filter (50), the motor (9a), the impeller (9b) and the air outlet filter (70) are arranged in the air duct (6/7 – the inlet, 20 is inserted in suction section, 6 – thus arranged in the air duct), wherein the air inlet (20) of the air duct (6/7) is connected to the air outlet (35) of the dust-air separation device (8).
Regarding Claim 17, Suzuki teaches the vacuum cleaner (1) wherein the air inlet filter (50 and 60), the motor (9a), and the air outlet filter (70) are arranged in the air duct (Fig. 1).
Suzuki does not teach the sequential arrangement from top to bottom.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Suzuki to further include the sequential arrangement from top to bottom, as claimed, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 18, Suzuki teaches the vacuum cleaner (1) wherein the housing (10) and the outer housing (1) are mechanically connected which can ensure the sealing connection between the air outlet (Paragraph [0029]) , and the air inlet (20) of the air duct (7; Paragraph [0029]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicants Arguments/Remarks dated May 21, 2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1 – 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “In Suzuki, the housing (10) is the separation body having first and second separation cylinders contained therein (see, paragraph [0021] and FIGS. 1-3). The Suzuki dust collection chamber (30) is not formed in the housing or in the cyclone separation chambers. Therefore, the Suzuki dust collection chamber cannot be considered a "dust collection chamber formed therein" as claimed in the Applicant's apparatus”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitation recites “a dust collection chamber formed therein”. Therein is an adverb meaning in or into the thing; thus the chamber is formed into the housing as shown in Fig. 4.
Additionally, in Suzuki there are two cyclone separation chambers (1 Oa and 1Ob in FIG. 2, e.g.) The Applicant's claims specify "a cyclone separation chamber" and thus allows "a" single cyclone separation chamber, the analysis of Suzuki that "the cyclone separation chamber (FIG. 3) further comprises a first separator (1 la), a second separator (1 1b), an air deflector (guide wall, 17) located between the first separator (11 a) and the second separator (11 b) on an inner peripheral wall of the cyclone separation chamber" is inaccurate.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 is directed toward a dust-air separation device “comprising” which is open; thus 2 cyclone separators read on the claimed limitation.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATINA N HENSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8024. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday; 5:30am to 3:30pm.
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 at 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.
/KATINA N. HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights