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 (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.
Claim Interpretation
The phrase of “configured to be operably linked to a power tool to collect dust generated by the power tool” is understood as being directed to and further reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention which does not result in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art do not limit the claim and do not distinguish over the prior art apparatus (or process). See, e.g., In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the claimed invention, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and cases cited therein, as it has been held that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable. In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also MPEP § 2111.02 and § 2112 - § 2112.02.
In this view, the “power tool” is treated solely as an external device that defines operating conditions; it is neither required nor claimed as part of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Richards et al (US 20200156199; hereinafter Richards).
As regarding claim 1, Richards discloses the claimed invention for a dust collector comprising: a main-body housing (118) having a suction port (122, 246), which is in fluid communication with the interior of the main-body housing; a motor assembly that comprises: a blower fan (130), which is disposed in an interior of the main-body housing; and a suction motor (126), which rotates the blower fan, the motor assembly being configured to generate suction force at the suction port; a first filter (346) disposed in a fluid communication path between the suction port and the blower fan; a filter cleaning apparatus (372) configured to clean the first filter; and a cleaning-control part (374) configured to actuate the filter cleaning apparatus after a power tool, which is fluidly connected to the suction port, stops operating ([0064]-[0065], [0068] and [0070]-[0071]).
As regarding claim 4, Richards discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Richards discloses the claimed invention for wherein the filter cleaning apparatus is configured to dislodge foreign matter, which has adhered to the first filter, from the first filter ([0064]-[0065], [0068] and [0070]-[0071]).
As regarding claim 6, Richards discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Richards discloses the claimed invention for wherein the cleaning-control part is configured to actuate the filter cleaning apparatus in response to receiving a tool-stop signal from the power tool ([0064]-[0065], [0068] and [0070]-[0071]).
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.
Claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richards et al (US 20200156199; hereinafter Richards) in view of Barris et al (US 5616171; hereinafter Barris) [or Rompel et al (US 20180085873; hereinafter Rompel)] and WO 2012016299 (hereinafter WO ‘299).
As regarding claim 1, Richards discloses the claimed invention for a dust collector configured to be operably linked to a power tool to collect dust generated by the power tool, the dust collector comprising: a main-body housing (118) having a suction port (122, 246), which is in fluid communication with the interior of the main-body housing; a motor assembly that comprises: a blower fan (130), which is disposed in an interior of the main-body housing; and a suction motor (126), which rotates the blower fan, the motor assembly being configured to generate suction force at the suction port; a first filter (346) disposed in a fluid communication path between the suction port and the blower fan; a filter cleaning apparatus (372) including a cleaning motor and an actuated member configured to be actuated by the cleaning motor to clean the first filter ([0064]-[0065], [0068] and [0070]-[0071]).
Richards does not disclose a controller including at least one processor and causing the at least one processor to: in response to the at least one processor receiving a tool-start signal from the power tool, start the suction motor to generate the suction force at the suction port; and in response to the at least one processor receiving a tool-stop signal from the power tool, actuate the cleaning motor to perform cleaning of the first filter while continuing to electronically drive the suction motor to rotate the blower fan for a prescribed time interval after receiving the tool-stop signal.
Barris (or Rompel) teaches a controller including at least one processor and causing the at least one processor to: in response to the at least one processor receiving a tool-start signal from the power tool, start the suction motor to generate the suction force at the suction port; and in response to the at least one processor receiving a tool-stop signal from the power tool, actuate the cleaning motor to perform cleaning of the first filter while continuing to electronically drive the suction motor to rotate the blower fan for a prescribed time interval after receiving the tool-stop signal (Barris - col 4 ln 16-18 and col 6 ln 43 – col 7 ln 22; Rompel – [0038], [0048], [0052]-[0056], [0060]-[0063], [0071], [0087], [0107]-[0108], [0100], and [0112]-[0114]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide at least one processor and causing the at least one processor to: in response to the at least one processor receiving a tool-start signal from the power tool, start the suction motor to generate the suction force at the suction port; and in response to the at least one processor receiving a tool-stop signal from the power tool, actuate the cleaning motor to perform cleaning of the first filter while continuing to electronically drive the suction motor to rotate the blower fan for a prescribed time interval after receiving the tool-stop signal as taught by Barris (or Rampel) in order to enhance filter cleaning performance.
Richards as modified does not disclose at least one non-transitory computer readable medium comprising computer readable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor. WO ‘299 teaches at least one non-transitory computer readable medium comprising computer readable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (pg 3 ln 19-25; pg 7 ln 35 – pg 8 ln 1; and claims 20-24). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to at least one non-transitory computer readable medium comprising computer readable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor as taught by WO ‘299 in order to enhance filter cleaning performance.
As regarding claim 4, Richards as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Richards as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the filter cleaning apparatus is configured to dislodge foreign matter, which has adhered to the first filter, from the first filter ([0064]-[0065], [0068] and [0070]-[0071]).
As regarding claim 11, Richards as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Richards as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the prescribed time interval is between 1-10 seconds. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the prescribed time interval is between 1-10 seconds in order to enhance filter cleaning performance, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 27 is likewise rejected for reasons analogous to those set forth for claims 1, 4, and 11 above.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richards et al (US 20200156199; hereinafter Richards) in view of Barris et al (US 5616171; hereinafter Barris) [or Rompel et al (US 20180085873; hereinafter Rompel)] and WO 2012016299 (hereinafter WO ‘299), as applied supra, and further in view of Ohlendorf (US 20200121146) or JP 6150517 (hereinafter JP ‘517).
As regarding claim 5, Richards discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Richards discloses the claimed invention except for a second filter; wherein: a first ventilation path fluidly connects the first filter and the blower fan; a second ventilation path fluidly connects the second filter and the blower fan; an air-exhaust passageway is configured to receive air exhausted from the motor assembly; a first connection opening fluidly connects the first ventilation path to the air-exhaust passageway; and a second connection opening fluidly connects the second ventilation path to the air-exhaust passageway; and wherein the filter cleaning apparatus comprises: a first valve configured to be actuated to change between a first state, in which the first ventilation path is open and the first connection opening is closed, and a second state, in which the first ventilation path is closed and the first connection opening is open; a second valve configured to be actuated to change between a third state, in which the second ventilation path is open and the second connection opening is closed, and a fourth state, in which the second ventilation path is closed and the second connection opening is open; and an actuation member configured to actuate the first valve to change from the first state to the second state and the second valve to change from the third state to the fourth state while the suction motor is being driven. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide a second filter; wherein: a first ventilation path fluidly connects the first filter and the blower fan; a second ventilation path fluidly connects the second filter and the blower fan; an air-exhaust passageway is configured to receive air exhausted from the motor assembly; a first connection opening fluidly connects the first ventilation path to the air-exhaust passageway; and a second connection opening fluidly connects the second ventilation path to the air-exhaust passageway; and wherein the filter cleaning apparatus comprises: a first valve configured to be actuated to change between a first state, in which the first ventilation path is open and the first connection opening is closed, and a second state, in which the first ventilation path is closed and the first connection opening is open; a second valve configured to be actuated to change between a third state, in which the second ventilation path is open and the second connection opening is closed, and a fourth state, in which the second ventilation path is closed and the second connection opening is open; and an actuation member configured to actuate the first valve to change from the first state to the second state and the second valve to change from the third state to the fourth state while the suction motor is being driven in order to enhance filter cleaning performance, since it was known in the art as shown in Ohlendorf (figs. 1-17; motor/fan is 6, 1st and 2nd valves are 27a/27b, and 1st and 2nd filters are 22a/22b) or JP ‘517 ([0029], [0032], [0035]-[0038], [0040] and [0047]).
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richards et al (US 20200156199; hereinafter Richards) in view of Barris et al (US 5616171; hereinafter Barris) [or Rompel et al (US 20180085873; hereinafter Rompel)] and WO 2012016299 (hereinafter WO ‘299), as applied supra, and further in view of Tada et al (US 20200306669; hereinafter Tada).
As regarding claim 7, Richards discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Richards discloses the claimed invention except for a wireless receiver configured to receive the tool-stop signal wirelessly from the power tool and to communicate the tool-stop signal to the cleaning control part. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide a wireless receiver configured to receive the tool-stop signal wirelessly from the power tool and to communicate the tool-stop signal to the cleaning control part in order to enhance filter cleaning performance, since it was known in the art as shown in Tada ([0025]).
Claim(s) 12-13, 16-26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richards et al (US 20200156199; hereinafter Richards) in view of Barris et al (US 5616171; hereinafter Barris) and Richard (US 6056797).
As regarding claim 12, Richards as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Richards as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the filter cleaning apparatus is configured to clean the first filter by jetting air through the filter in an airflow direction that is opposite of the airflow direction prior to the stopping of the power tool. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the filter cleaning apparatus is configured to clean the first filter by jetting air through the filter in an airflow direction that is opposite of the airflow direction prior to the stopping of the power tool in order to enhance filter cleaning performance, since it was known in the art as shown in Richard (abstract).
Claims 13 and 16-19 are likewise rejected for reasons analogous to those set forth for claims 1, 4-5, 7, and 11-12 above.
Claims 20-26 and 28 are likewise rejected for reasons analogous to those set forth for claims 1, 4-5, 7, 11-13 and 16-19 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/01/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4-5, 7, 11 and 27-28 have been considered but are moot because of the new ground of rejection.
As regarding claim 12, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive for at least the following reasons.
First, Applicant improperly characterizes the proposed combination as requiring a wholesale replacement of the cleaning mechanism of US ‘199 and as changing the “principle of operation” of the reference. However, the rejection does not require replacing or destroying the operation of Richards. Rather, the rejection merely relies on Barris for teaching the well-known use of reverse-air pulse cleaning for removing dust from a filter element in a dust collection system. Incorporating an additional or alternative known filter-cleaning technique into the dust collector of Richards would have represented nothing more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
Applicant’s “principle of operation” argument is also misplaced because the fundamental principle of operation of Richards is not limited to mechanical impact generation, but rather more broadly concerns cleaning accumulated dust from a filter in a dust collector to maintain suction performance. The proposed modification does not render Richards inoperable for its intended purpose, but instead merely substitutes one known filter-cleaning technique for another known filter-cleaning technique directed to the same objective. Such substitution is expressly recognized as obvious under MPEP §2143(I)(B) (“simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results”).
Moreover, it was well known in the art that filter-cleaning systems commonly employed interchangeable cleaning methodologies, including both mechanical shaking and reverse-air pulsing techniques, to remove accumulated particulate matter from filters without interrupting operation of the dust collection system. For example, Copley (US4359330) expressly teaches at column 1, lines 29–32 that filter cleaning may be accomplished “by mechanical shaking or by reverse air jet pulsing” while maintaining system operation. Thus, the art itself demonstrates that persons of ordinary skill recognized these techniques as known alternative approaches for accomplishing the same filter-cleaning function. Accordingly, substituting or incorporating reverse-air pulse cleaning into the system of Richards would have been entirely consistent with established industry practice and ordinary engineering design choice.
Applicant further argues that Barris allegedly requires a large compressed air tank and/or compressor that would significantly increase the weight and size of the device of Richards. This argument is likewise unpersuasive because the rejection does not require bodily incorporation of every structural feature of Barris into Richards. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.”). Rather, the rejection relies on the teaching of reverse-air pulse cleaning itself. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have readily understood that the compressed-air source, accumulator size, and associated components could be appropriately scaled, miniaturized, integrated, or otherwise adapted depending on the size and intended application of the dust collector.
Indeed, compact pneumatic pulse-cleaning arrangements were well known in portable and industrial dust collection systems prior to Applicant’s filing date. The mere fact that engineering tradeoffs such as weight, size, or servicing considerations may exist does not teach away from the proposed modification. See MPEP §2143.01(V); In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (a reference teaches away only when it discourages the claimed solution). Neither Richards nor Barris criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages use of reverse-air pulse cleaning in a portable dust collection environment.
Applicant’s argument regarding possible servicing inconvenience or depletion of compressed air is speculative and unsupported by evidence. Obviousness cannot be rebutted by mere attorney argument unsupported by objective evidence. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Furthermore, engineering considerations such as maintenance intervals, component size, or refill frequency merely reflect routine optimization and design choice well within the ordinary skill in the art.
Applicant additionally contends that reverse airflow cleaning would allegedly blow dust out of the suction inlet and toward the operator. However, this argument again assumes an overly simplistic bodily incorporation of Barris into Richards. A person of ordinary skill would have understood that airflow routing, valve timing, flap arrangements, one-way valves, suction timing, and pressure control could be configured to minimize or prevent outward dust discharge. Such implementation details constitute ordinary engineering considerations and do not undermine the motivation to combine the references.
Finally, Applicant has not demonstrated that the proposed combination would render the device of Richards unsatisfactory for its intended purpose or fundamentally alter its operation. The combination merely applies a known alternative filter-cleaning technique to achieve the same known objective of removing dust accumulation from a filter and maintaining suction efficiency. The proposed modification therefore represents no more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to established functions and would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUNG H BUI whose telephone number is (571)270-7077. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 ET.
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, Benjamin L. Lebron can be reached at (571) 272-0475. 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.
/DUNG H BUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights