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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/11/2025 has been entered.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: In claims 15-16 the phrase “a cover is arranged in said deflection bowl at least at one of said passage openings partly covering said at least one passage opening in an upward direction in said rest position” (claim 15) and “partly covering said one passage” (claim 16) is not found in the specification and is not clear how a passage opening covers another passage opening in an upward direction.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 15-16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting what passage opening(s) is/are being covered and how one passage covers another passage. The specification does not make up for this deficiency either since there is not discloses between the necessary structural connections for a passage covering another passage.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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) 1-2, 5-6, 8-9, 11, 15-17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by von Krane et al. (US 20130306018 A1) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over von Krane et al. (US 20130306018 A1) in view of Geyer et al. (US 20030172899 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 8-9, von Krane et al. discloses a handheld work apparatus (1) comprising: a housing (6); a work tool (blowing pipe/11); a combustion engine (15) for driving said work tool arranged in said housing; said handheld work apparatus defining a rest position wherein said work apparatus stands on a planar, horizontal rest surface (fig. 1); said handheld work apparatus having a bottom (14) configured to face the planar, horizontal rest surface when in said rest position; said combustion engine including a cylinder (16) and a piston (18) arranged in said cylinder so as to move in a reciprocating manner therein; said cylinder and said piston conjointly delimiting a combustion chamber formed in said cylinder; said combustion engine including a crankcase (21) connected to said cylinder; said combustion engine including a crankshaft (19/20 [0030-0032], figs. 1-2) rotatably mounted in said crankcase and being operatively connected to said piston (18) so as to permit said piston to rotatably drive said crankshaft; said combustion engine including a fuel supply (7/carburetor 30 [0031, 0037-0040]);
an intake channel (31-36/37) having an intake channel section formed in said fuel supply; said fuel supply defining a main fuel opening (35) into said intake channel section; said intake channel having a partition wall (32) dividing said intake channel into a mixture channel (22/42) and an air channel (24/41);
said combustion engine including an air filter (39) configured as a round air filter defining a clean chamber (81, [0036]); said combustion engine including a deflection bowl (43) formed in said clean chamber; said deflection bowl having at least one first passage opening (41/channel opening 58 and opening 67) whereat said air channel (24) passes from said deflection bowl into said clean chamber ([0038-0039], figs. 2-3);
said deflection bowl having at least one second passage opening (42/duct opening 57 and opening 67) whereat said mixture channel (22) passes out of said deflection bowl into said clean chamber (81); said air channel and said mixture channel being guided in said deflection bowl so as to be completely separate from each other (via dividing wall 59) wherein partition wall (32) extends into deflection bowl (32/59) and a section (59) is formed on the deflection bowl ([0036-0045, 0048, 0053-0055], figs. 1-9);
in said rest position, said at least one second passage opening (42/duct opening 57 and opening 67) does not extend into a region situated lower with respect to a geodetic height than said main fuel opening (35); and, in said rest position, said mixture channel runs at least partly beneath said air channel at least in said fuel supply unit ([0033-0055], figs. 1-9). von Krane et al. also discloses the air channel can be supplied with a lean mixture is supplied via the air duct 24 [0033].
In the alternative, if it can be argued that von Krane et al. fails to disclose having in said rest position, said at least one second passage opening does not extend into a region situated lower with respect to a geodetic height than said main fuel opening; and, in said rest position, said mixture channel runs at least partly beneath said air channel at least in said fuel supply unit-
in said rest position, said at least one second passage opening (42/duct opening 57 and opening 67) does not extend into a region situated lower with respect to a geodetic height than said main fuel opening (35); and, in said rest position, said mixture channel runs at least partly beneath said air channel at least in said fuel supply unit ([0033-0055], figs. 1-9).
Geyer et al. teaches having a portable work apparatus (1)/chain saw (35) in a rest position with at least one second passage opening (13) does not extend into a region situated lower with respect to a geodetic height than a main fuel opening (12); and, in said rest position, said mixture channel runs at least partly beneath said air channel at least in said fuel supply unit ([0007, 0017, 0027], figs. 1-4).
Given the teachings of von Krane et al. to have the second passage opening above the main fuel opening and the air channel with having lean mixture, it 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 to modify the handheld work apparatus in said rest position with the at least one second passage opening does not extend into a region situated lower with respect to a geodetic height than said main fuel opening; and, in the rest position, said mixture channel runs at least partly beneath said air channel at least in said fuel supply unit to have cleaner air intake, improved fuel mixture and and/or for more compact design purposes as taught by Geyer et al.
Regarding claim 2 and 5-6, von Krane et al. discloses said fuel supply (35) has an upstream end face; and, in said rest position, said at least one second passage opening (42/duct opening 57 and opening 67) does not extend into a region situated lower in terms of said geodetic elevation than said partition wall in said upstream end face and the intake channel (31-36/37) defines a longitudinal axis; said mixture channel has a connecting opening (42) into said deflection bowl; and, said connecting opening lies entirely in overlapment with said deflection bowl viewed in a direction of said longitudinal axis of said intake channel and deflection bowl comprises a first deflection bowl part (43) and a second deflection bowl part (8)which adjoin said mixture channel3 ([0033-0055], figs. 1-9).
Regarding claims 11 and 15-16, von Krane et al. discloses the partition wall (32) defines a central plane central plane (see figs. 1-3) and the deflection bowl includes two fastening openings (63) for respective fastening screws and, said two fastening openings are arranged on opposite sides of said central plane of said partition wall wherein a cover (8) is arranged in said deflection bowl at least at one of said passage openings partly covering said at least one passage opening in an upward direction in said rest position (43/73, [0033-0055], figs. 1-5).
Regarding claim 17, von Krane et al. discloses the crankcase delimits a crankcase interior (21); said combustion engine is a two-stroke engine having at least one transfer channel (crossflow ducts 27) connecting said crankcase interior in the region of bottom dead center of said piston fluidically to said combustion chamber ([0032-0035], fig. 2); and, said air channel (24) is connected fluidically to said transfer channel for at least a portion of a stroke of said piston ([0033-0055], figs. 1-5).
Regarding claim 19, von Krane et al. discloses the air filter (38) includes filter material (filter element 39) which runs between end-face plates (40/51) and completely encloses said clean chamber; and, said deflection bowl is surrounded by said filter material of said round filter in said clean chamber ([0036-0039, 0043-0044, 0047, 0052-0054], figs. 2-9).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 7, 10, and 12-14, are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Reasons for Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art of record fails to teach or render obvious a surgical stapling device comprising all the structural and functional limitations and further comprising, amongst other limitations/features, a deflection bowl having two second passage openings; and, wherein said mixture channel is divided, in said deflection bowl, into two arms opening at corresponding ones of the two second passage openings. Though von Krane et al. teaches a deflection bowl with passages, it would not be obvious to modify the deflection bowl with having two second passage openings; and, wherein said mixture channel is divided, in said deflection bowl, into two arms opening at corresponding ones of the two second passage openings without having to also modify the fuel supply which would result in hindsight modification and changing the prior art fuel intake structure. Having the efficiency and two arm passage provides an efficient fuel mixture and clean air separator to provide effective intake fuel to the combustion engine.
While various features of the claimed subject matter are found individually in the prior art, a skilled artisan would have to include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure to combine or modify the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed subject matter, and thus obviousness would not be proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). There is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine or modify the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention, and thus obviousness would not be proper. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-17 and 19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on all references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Additional prior art considered pertinent: see form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT LONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm, 8-9pm (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, SHELLEY SELF can be reached at (571) 272-4524. 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.
/ROBERT F LONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731