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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/11/2024 was filed after the mailing date of the application on01/11/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
Figures 5, 6 & 7 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. Drawings described in brief description as “conventional vacuum”. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 4 & 5 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 & 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,146,498 (referred to alternatively as Pat. ‘498). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
A comparison of the subject matter of claim 1 of the instant application with the claims 1 & 2 of the Pat. ‘498 shows the following:
Instant Application: 18/410,343
US Patent No.: 12,146,498
Claim 1
Claims 1 & 2
A vacuum configured to perform sucking work, comprising:
Claim 1, col. 11, line 6-7: A vacuum blower configured to perform sucking work and blowing work (note, bolded portion not included in instant application), comprising:
a pipe including a suction port and a discharge port;
Claim 1, col. 11, line 8: a pipe including a suction port and a discharge port;
a blower fan driven by a driving source; and
Claim 1, col. 11, line 9: a blower fan driven by a driving source; and
a nozzle provided near the suction port of the pipe, and configured to feed pressurized wind generated by the blower fan into the pipe from around the pipe, and to eject the pressurized wind to the discharge port,
Claim 1, col. 11, line 10-13: a nozzle provided near the suction port of the pipe, and configured to feed pressurized wind generated by the blower fan into the pipe from around the pipe, and to eject the pressurized wind to the discharge port,
wherein: the nozzle includes:
Claim 1, col. 11, line 14-15: wherein: the nozzle includes
an inner pipe disposed inside of the pipe; and
Claim 1, col. 11, line 15-16: an inner pipe disposed inside of the pipe
a turn portion disposed around a front end portion of the inner pipe, the turn portion including the suction port and allowing the pressurized wind generated by the blower fan and fed to an outside of the inner pipe to turn toward a base end at around the front end portion of the inner pipe;
Claim 1, col. 11, line 37 – col. 12, line 3: the front end portion of the nozzle includes a front end turn portion disposed around the front end portion of the inner pipe, and in the sucking state
(“nozzle provided near suction port” and “nozzle includes front end turn portion”, therefore, “turn portion includes suction port” is supported at col. 6, line 31-38)
, the pressurized wind generated by the blower fan and fed to the outside of the inner pipe turns toward a base end at around the front end portion of the inner pipe,
an ejection port is formed between the turn portion and the inner pipe; and
Claim 1, col. 12, line 2-3: ejection port formed between the base end turn portion and the inner pipe
the ejection port is provided radially outward of a narrowest portion of the inner pipe, the narrowest portion being provided nearer to the base end than the ejection port.
Claim 2, col. 12, line 13-17: ejection port is provided radially outward of a narrowest portion of the inner pipe, the narrowest portion being provided nearer to the base end than the front end ejection port
A comparison of the subject matter of claim 4 of the instant application with the claims 1 & 2 of the Pat. ‘498 shows the following:
Instant Application: 18/410,343
US Patent No.: 12,146,498
Claim 4
Claims 1 & 2
The vacuum according to claim 1, wherein:
Note, claims 1 & 2 of Pat. ‘498 includes the limitations of the instant application, as described in the instant application claim 1 table above.
the turn portion is configured to be attached to and detached from the pipe; and
Claim 1, col. 11, line 37-39: the front end portion of the nozzle includes a front end turn portion disposed around the front end portion of the inner pipe
col. 11, line 15-16: the nozzle includes an inner pipe disposed inside of the pipe so as to be slidable relative to the pipe; and by sliding the inner pipe relative to the pipe
with the turn portion detached from the pipe, the nozzle ejects the pressurized wind generated by the blower fan and fed to the outside of the inner pipe to an opposite side of the discharge port along the outside of the inner pipe.
Claim 1, col. 11, line 30-35: the base end portion of the inner pipe is separated from the base end portion of the nozzle facing the base end portion of the inner pipe, and the pressurized wind generated by the blower fan and fed to the outside of the inner pipe is ejected to the suction port along the inside of the inner pipe
A comparison of the subject matter of claim 4 of the instant application with the claims 1 & 2 of the Pat. ‘498 shows the following:
Instant Application: 18/410,343
US Patent No.: 12,146,498
Claim 5
Claims 1 & 2
The vacuum according to claim 1, wherein:
Note, claims 1 & 2 of Pat. ‘498 includes the limitations of the instant application, as described in the instant application claim 1 table above.
the turn portion is configured to be attached to and detached from the pipe; and
Claim 1, col. 11, line 37-39: the front end portion of the nozzle includes a front end turn portion disposed around the front end portion of the inner pipe
col. 11, line 15-16: the nozzle includes an inner pipe disposed inside of the pipe so as to be slidable relative to the pipe; and by sliding the inner pipe relative to the pipe
according to the turn portion being attached to or detached from the pipe,
Note, excerpts describe the attachment or detachment of the turn portion to/from the pipe;
Claim 1, col. 11, line 18-24: a base end portion of the inner pipe comes into close contact with a base end portion of the nozzle facing the base end portion of the inner pipe, a front end portion of the inner pipe is separated from a front end portion of the nozzle facing the front end portion of the inner pipe, and
Claim 1, col. 11, line 27-32: the front end portion of the inner pipe comes into close contact with the front end portion of the nozzle facing the front end portion of the inner pipe, the base end portion of the inner pipe is separated from the base end portion of the nozzle facing the base end portion of the inner pipe, and
the nozzle is configured to switch between
Claim 1, col. 11, line 17-18: the nozzle is configured to switch between:
a state where the pressurized wind generated by the blower fan and fed to the outside of the inner pipe is ejected to the discharge port along an inside of the inner pipe and
Claim 1, col. 11, line 18-26: a sucking state, where the pressurized wind generated by the blower fan and fed to an outside of the inner pipe is ejected to the discharge port along an inside of the inner pipe; and
a state where the pressurized wind generated by the blower fan and fed to the outside of the inner pipe is ejected to an opposite side of the discharge port along the outside of the inner pipe.
Claim 1, col. 11, line 27-35: a blowing state, where the pressurized wind generated by the blower fan and fed to the outside of the inner pipe is ejected to the suction port along the inside of the inner pipe
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1 is 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.
The term “near” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In the interest of compact prosecution and for the purposes of this Office action, “near” will be interpreted in claim 1, line 4 as adjacent in location.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hallendorff.
Regarding claim 1, Hallendorff discloses a vacuum (element 1, fig. 2) configured to perform sucking work, comprising:
a pipe (element 5, fig. 2) including a suction port (element 5 & 6, fig. 2; p. 7, line 21-25; note, flared end (element 6) and extension (pipe portion forward of turn portion) are provided for improved suction, consistent with suction port) and a discharge port (element 7, fig. 2);
a blower fan (element 2, fig. 3); and
a nozzle (element 11, fig. 2) provided near (In the interest of compact prosecution and for the purposes of this Office action, “near” will be interpreted in claim 1, line 4 as adjacent in location.) the suction port of the pipe, and configured to feed pressurized wind generated by the blower fan into the pipe from around the pipe (fig. 6; p. 8, line 16-29; note, fig. 6 shows an airflow simulation), and to eject the pressurized wind to the discharge port (fig. 6; p. 8, line 16-29; note, fig. 6 shows an airflow simulation),
wherein: the nozzle includes:
an inner pipe (element 5, fig. 2; see annotated fig. 2 (a) below) disposed inside of the pipe; and
a turn portion (element 8, 16, fig. 4) disposed around a front end portion of the inner pipe (see annotated fig. 2 (a)), the turn portion including the suction port (see annotated fig. 4 below) and allowing the pressurized wind generated by the blower fan and fed to an outside of the inner pipe to turn toward a base end at around the front end portion of the inner pipe (fig. 6; p. 8, line 16-29; note, fig. 6 shows an airflow simulation; airflow path shows air being redirected at turn portion, which is at front end portion of inner pipe);
PNG
media_image1.png
508
733
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
432
720
media_image2.png
Greyscale
an ejection port (element 8 & 16, fig. 4) is formed between the turn portion and the inner pipe; and
the ejection port is provided radially outward of a narrowest portion of the inner pipe (see annotated fig. 4), the narrowest portion being provided nearer to the base end than the ejection port (see annotated fig. 2 (b) below & annotated fig. 4).
PNG
media_image3.png
508
733
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Hallendorff teaches, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the blower fan is
driven by a driving source
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.
Regarding claim 2, Hallendorff discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further, wherein the turn portion includes a continuous curved 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 of the turn portion of the vacuum of Hallendorff. 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 4, Hallendorff discloses a first embodiment (element 1, fig. 1) which discloses the limitations of claim 1, but fails to teach:
wherein the turn portion includes a ring- shaped member configured to be attached to and detached from the pipe
However, Hallendorff teaches in a second embodiment of 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 turn portion (element 81, fig. 7), wherein:
wherein the turn portion includes a ring- shaped member configured to be attached to and detached from the pipe (element 81, fig. 7).
Hallendorff teaches “The input air channel 3 continues through a transition portion 14 to a shell 11 surrounding a portion 12 of the through channel 5. The shell 11 preferably has the same shape as the through channel 5, i.e. if the through channel 5 is cylindrical, the shell 11 has a cylindrical shape. Further, the shell 11 may surround the portion 12 in a coaxial manner.” (p. 6, line 26-30). While referring to the first embodiment, the structural considerations expressed are maintained in the third embodiment.
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 ring-shaped turn portion of the vacuum of Hallendorff. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand having a ring-shaped turn portion offers consistent airflow around the circumference of the inner pipe, as opposed to airflow focused at a singular radial point of entry relative to the inner pipe. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the improved functionality offered in having an assembly capable of disassembly for maintenance or repair or the ability to operate the device without the turn portion, as a conventional blower.
Regarding claim 4, Hallendorff discloses a first embodiment (element 1, fig. 1) which discloses the limitations of claim 1, but fails to teach:
the turn portion is configured to be attached to and detached from the pipe; and
with the turn portion detached from the pipe, the nozzle ejects the pressurized wind generated by the blower fan and fed to the outside of the inner pipe to an opposite side of the discharge port along the outside of the inner pipe.
However, Hallendorff teaches in a third embodiment of 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 turn portion (element 81, fig. 7), wherein:
the turn portion is configured to be attached to and detached from the pipe (p. 10, line 9; note, turn portion is described as “an insert” which is separable from other parts of assembly); and
with the turn portion detached from the pipe, the nozzle ejects the pressurized wind generated by the blower fan and fed to the outside of the inner pipe to an opposite side of the discharge port along the outside of the inner 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)).
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 turn portion of the vacuum of Hallendorff. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that, with either the turn portion (element 81) or the turn portion 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 turn portion, or in removing the turn portion and the extension pipe, to enable operation of the device as a blower, while the collection container is still attached.
Regarding claim 5, Hallendorff discloses a first embodiment (element x, fig. x) which discloses the limitations of claim 1, but fails to teach:
the turn portion is configured to be attached to and detached from the pipe; and
according to the turn portion being attached to or detached from the pipe, the nozzle is configured to switch between a state where the pressurized wind generated by the blower fan and fed to the outside of the inner pipe is ejected to the discharge port along an inside of the inner pipe and a state where the pressurized wind generated by the blower fan and fed to the outside of the inner pipe is ejected to an opposite side of the discharge port along the outside of the inner pipe.
However, Hallendorff teaches in a third embodiment of 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 turn portion (element 81, fig. 7), wherein:
the turn portion is configured to be attached to and detached from the pipe (p. 10, line 9; note, turn portion is described as “an insert” which is separable from other parts of assembly); and
according to the turn portion being attached to or detached from the pipe, the nozzle is configured to switch between a state where the pressurized wind generated by the blower fan and fed to the outside of the inner pipe is ejected to the discharge port along an inside of the inner pipe (p. 9, line 31 – p. 10, line 2) and a state where the pressurized wind generated by the blower fan and fed to the outside of the inner pipe is ejected to an opposite side of the discharge port along the outside of the inner 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)).
Hallendorff teaches of a second embodiment “The functioning of the attachment of this embodiment is identical to that described above, in that air blown into air inlet 54 will pass through input air channel 53 and port 58 into through channel 55. This will cause an airflow through channel 55 from vacuum inlet 56 to outlet 57, entraining debris therewith. The differences between this embodiment and the first embodiment lie in the construction of the attachment 51.” (p. 9, line 31 – p. 10, line 2).
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 turn portion of the vacuum of Hallendorff. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that, with either the turn portion (element 81) or the turn portion 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 turn portion, or in removing the turn portion and the extension pipe, to enable operation of the device as a blower, while the collection container is still attached.
Regarding claim 6, Hallendorff discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further, wherein a portion of the inner pipe nearer to the discharge port than the narrowest portion has a smaller inclination with respect to an axis of the inner pipe than a portion of the inner pipe nearer to the suction port than the narrowest portion (see annotated fig. 2 (b)).
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).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the inner pipe with a smaller inclination at one end and a larger inclination at the other end of the vacuum of Hallendorff. One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the benefits of such an inner pipe construction, as suggested by Hallendorff.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Howells (US 5621945 A) teaches a blower/vacuum having an inner and outer pipe, wherein a blower pushes air through the outer pipe, through a turn portion, into the inner pipe to create a vacuum for collecting debris. Alternatively, the turn portion can be moved to direct the air in the outer pipe outward, operating the device as a blower.
Fujiwara (US 6141824 A) teaches a blower/vacuum having an inner and outer pipe, wherein a blower pushes air through the outer pipe, through a turn portion, into the inner pipe to create a vacuum for collecting debris. Alternatively, the turn portion can be moved to direct the air in the outer pipe outward, operating the device as a blower.
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