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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in response to the Amendments/Response filed by Applicant on 04/07/2026.
Claims 1-3 and 6 are amended.
Claims 4 and 5 are canceled.
Response to Amendment
The examiner fully acknowledges the amendments to claims 1-3 and 6 as filed by Applicant on 04/07/2026.
The amendments to the drawing objections (figs. 5, 6 and 7) have addressed the objections previously submitted and the objections set forth in the previous office action pertaining to the drawings are withdrawn.
The terminal disclaimer filed in response to the double patenting rejection based on U.S. Patent No. 12,146,498 has addressed the rejection previously submitted and the rejection set forth in the previous office action pertaining to the double patenting grounds is withdrawn.
The amendments to claim 1 have addressed the 112(b) rejection previously submitted and the claim rejection set forth in the previous office action pertaining to the claim is withdrawn.
Please see the new rejection set forth in the present action in light of limitations now required within the presently filed claims.
Response to Arguments
35 USC 103 Claim Rejections: Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3 and 6 have been considered.
In response to applicant’s argument that the reference fails to show all the features of the claimed invention, it is noted element in the amended and presently filed claims have yet to be examined.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 16 recites “inner pipe fomes”, consider instead: -- inner pipe forms --.
Line 20 recites “the mail air flow”, consider instead: -- the main air flow --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hallendorff (CN 105143557 A) in view of Coleman (GB 2169192 A).
Regarding claim 1, Hallendorff teaches a vacuum (element 1, fig. 2) configured to perform air suction, comprising:
a pipe (element 5, fig. 2) forming therethrough a main air flow path (p. 7, line 12-13; “air flowing through the port is ejected into the through channel 5 in the general direction of the outlet 7”) extensive from front to rear and including a front end section (element 5, 6, fig. 2) having a front end (element 6, fig. 2; p. 7, line 23; “vacuum inlet”) of the pipe at which a suction port (element 6, fig. 2; p. 7, line 23; “vacuum inlet”) is provided for drawing air therefrom into the main air flow path of the pipe, wherein the pipe further includes a discharge port (element 7, fig. 2; p. 8, line 9-10; “airflow from the vacuum inlet 6 to the outlet 7”) separate from the suction port and configured to discharge the air drawn from the suction port out of the main air flow path of the pipe (element 7, fig. 2; p. 8, line 9-10; “airflow from the vacuum inlet 6 to the outlet 7”);
a blower fan (element 2, fig. 3) to generate pressurized air (p. 7, line 34-35; “the blower 2 will provide a stream of air to the inlet 4. This air does not yet have any debris entrained in it, and so the fan in the blower is a "clean" fan”; p. 8, line 6-8; “A moving airstream will cause a drop in the local air pressure, and so the moving airstream from the port 8 directed towards the outlet 7 will cause a drop in pressure at the vacuum inlet 6”); and
a nozzle (element 11, fig. 2) forming the front end section of the pipe and including a nozzle inner pipe (element 5, fig. 2) and a nozzle outer pipe (element 11, fig. 2) circumferentially surrounding the nozzle inner pipe (p. 7, line 15-19; note, port extends around the internal circumference of the through channel 5) so that a pressurized air flow path (element 3, fig. 2) is formed between them through which the pressurized air is guided toward the front end of the pipe (p. 8, para. 1-3; “The air will pass through the input air channel 3, and pass out through the port 8 into the through channel 5”),
wherein the nozzle inner pipe forms a part of the main air flow path (see annotated fig. 4 below) of the pipe along the front end section of the pipe and includes a front end (element 8, 16, fig. 4; see annotated fig. 4), and
wherein the nozzle outer pipe includes a front end part curved inwardly (element 8, fig. 2) toward an inside of the main air flow path (element 16, fig. 2) to partially encircle the front end of the nozzle inner pipe so that the front end of the inner pipe and the curved front end part of the nozzle outer pipe form an ejection port (see annotated fig. 4) between them through which the pressurized air is ejected into the main air flow path (p. 7, line 12-13; “air flowing through the port is ejected into the through channel 5 in the general direction of the outlet 7”) after flowing through the pressurized air flow path toward the front end of the pipe and changing its direction into the main air flow path along the curved front end part of the nozzle outer pipe (p. 7, line 8-12; “The input air channel 3 terminates in a port 8 where the input air channel enters the through channel 5. The cross section of the input air channel decreases as it approaches the port 8, to cause an increase in the speed of the air flowing therethrough. As it passes through the port, the airflow changes in direction by preferably at least approximately 135 degrees”).
PNG
media_image1.png
384
728
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hallendorff fails to disclose:
wherein the front end section terminates at a front end of the pipe;
wherein the blower fan is driven by a driving source;
wherein the nozzle includes a reduced diameter part that has a diameter shorter than any other parts of the nozzle inner pipe; and
wherein the ejection port is situated radially outwardly from the reduced diameter part of the nozzle inner pipe.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a driving source into the blower fan of the vacuum of Hallendorff. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the blower fan requires a driving source.
Hallendorff as modified fails to teach:
wherein the front end section terminates at a front end of the pipe;
wherein the nozzle includes a reduced diameter part that has a diameter shorter than any other parts of the nozzle inner pipe; and
wherein the ejection port is situated radially outwardly from the reduced diameter part of the nozzle inner pipe.
Coleman teaches a vacuum (no element # given, fig. 1) configured to perform air suction, comprising a including a front end section (element 2, 3, 10, fig. 1) and a nozzle (element 2, fig. 1),
wherein the front end section terminates at a front end of the pipe (see annotated fig. 1 below);
wherein the nozzle includes a reduced diameter part (element 3, fig. 1) that has a diameter shorter than any other parts of the nozzle inner pipe (see annotated fig. 1); and
wherein the ejection port is situated radially outwardly from the reduced diameter part of the nozzle inner pipe (see annotated fig. 1).
Coleman teaches “compressed air, which may also be referred to as the primary flow, forms a jet which attaches to the Coanda surface 3” (p. 2, line 21-24).
Hallendorff similarly teaches “the cross section of the input air channel decreases as it approaches the port 8, to cause an increase in the speed of the air flowing therethrough” (p. 7, line 9-11).
PNG
media_image2.png
644
850
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vacuum of Hallendorff modified by incorporating the reduced diameter part of Coleman. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand to implement the structure of Coleman into the inner pipe of Hallendorff modified to appreciate the benefits in airflow and suction pressure taught by both references.
Regarding claim 2, Hallendorff modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches:
wherein the curved front end part of the nozzle outer pipe includes a continuous, curved inner surface (element 8, fig. 4).
Hallendorff teaches “as it (air) passes through the port, the airflow changes in direction by preferably at least approximately 135 degrees, so that air flowing through the port is ejected into the through channel 5 in the general direction of the outlet 7. Again, the change in direction is smooth” (p. 7, line 11-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a continuous curved surface to the curved front end part of the nozzle of Hallendorff modified. One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the improved flow characteristics of a curved surface in redirecting the airflow. Hallendorff also generally teaches the benefit of smooth changes in direction of airflow are beneficial in reducing turbulence (p. 3, line 2-4).
Regarding claim 3, Hallendorff modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 in a first embodiment (fig. 1-5), but fails to teach:
wherein the curved front end part of the nozzle outer pipe is configured separable from a rest of the nozzle outer pipe, wherein the nozzle outer pipe without the curved front end part ejects the pressurized air frontward from the front end of the pipe.
Hallendorff teaches in a third embodiment a vacuum (element 51, fig. 7) comprising a pipe (element 55, fig. 7), blower fan (element 2, fig. 3), nozzle (element 83, fig. 7), wherein the nozzle includes an inner pipe (element 82, fig. 7) and a curved front end part of the nozzle (element 81, fig. 7),
wherein the curved front end part of the nozzle outer pipe is configured separable from a rest of the nozzle outer pipe (p. 10, line 9; note, turn portion is described as “an insert” which is separable from other parts of assembly), wherein the nozzle outer pipe without the curved front end part ejects the pressurized air frontward from the front end of the pipe (p. 10, line 15-19; note, airflow is directed between walls of inner pipe (tubular member; element 82, fig. 7) and nozzle (inlet part; element 83, fig. 7)).
Coleman additionally teaches “the unit inlet (element 2, fig. 1) is secured via the screw thread on its inner surface which mates with a corresponding thread on the inlet chamber body (element 1, fig. 1)” (p. 2, line 9-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a detachable curved front end part of the nozzle of Hallendorff modified. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that, with either the curved front end part (element 81) or the curved front end part and the pipe extension (element 80) removed, the structure of Hallendorff is substantially identical to the structure described in claim limitations. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the benefit in removing the curved front end part, or in removing the curved front end part and the extension pipe, to enable operation of the device as a blower, while the collection container is still attached.
Regarding claim 6, Hallendorff modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches:
wherein the reduced diameter part includes an inclined front inner surface (see Coleman annotated fig. 1) and an inclined rear inner surface (see Coleman annotated fig. 1), and the inclined rear inner surface is inclined at a smaller angle than an angle at which the inclined front inner surface is inclined.
Hallendorff teaches a flared end on the suction port and “widening the through channel towards the outlet will give a better vacuum performance than if the through channel has the same width the whole way to the outlet” (p. 3, line 21-33).
Coleman teaches “Coanda surface 3 and divergent section 4 are used to enhance entrainment into a primary flow of compressed air from the peripheral nozzle 10” (abstract, (57)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Turnball (US 5450649 A) and Webster (US 5522115 A) both disclose or otherwise teach relevant inventions to switchable vacuum/blower devices.
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 KEEGAN T MARTIN whose telephone number is (571) 272-7452. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
/KEEGAN T MARTIN/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights