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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, corresponding claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 11/13/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-9 are examining below. Claims 10-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/28/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
There are 30 figures have not been thoroughly checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in these figures. For an example,
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the trigger in claim 6 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
In this case, the abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the phase “are disclosed” in the first line should be avoided. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01 (b).
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a substantially cylindrical” should read -- substantially cylindrical--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 3, 5-9 are 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 scope of Claim 3 “the vacuum motor has a form factor that is a substantially cylindrical” is unclear. What are metes and bounds of the “form factor” in the motor? Or what is the “form factor” referencing to? It is also unclear because the term “substantially cylindrical”. Examiner has reviewed the disclosure and can find no guidance for what the boundaries of this term might be. As a result, the recitation of “substantially cylindrical” is indefinite because it is unclear what differences are permitted while still being considered “substantially cylindrical”.
The scope of Claim 5 “logic circuitry configured to auto-rotate the cylinder filler” is unclear. Looking at Figure 14, the logic circuitry 690 is an empty box connecting to the cylindrical filter 614. Reading at Applicant’s specification, para. 52 recites that “where logic circuitry 690 is programmable and/or controllable via a computing device, such as the computing device” which means the logic circuitry is a controller. As claim 5 is written, it is unclear what driver or structure that rotates the filter. Claims 6-9 are dependent from claim 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent from the rejected parent claim.
Double Patenting
With regards to current claims 1-9, Examiner notes that the scope of these claims are different from claims in the copending application No. 18/488,943 (no double patenting rejection is given), However, upon claims 1-9 being rewritten or finally amended, further consideration and review of these claims with respect to the double patent will be necessary.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guth (US 2019/0201991) in view of Omohundro (US 3217470) .
Regarding claim 1, Guth shows a saw apparatus (Figure 2) comprising:
a vacuum source (212, Figure 11);
a filter (217, Figure 11 and Para. 44 “A vacuum source 212 attached to the rotatable filter 217”) coupled to the vacuum source; and
a worktable (220) comprising a center slot (226) axially aligned to a circular saw blade (230), wherein the vacuum source is configured to provide a negative pressure beneath the worktable at the center slot, and wherein the filter is configured to collect airborne dust drawn by the negative pressure from an area proximate to the center slot (see Figure 8 and Para. 44 “During use, as the worktable 220 slides over the housing 210, this air flow provides a negative pressure just below the center slot 226, wherein dust proximate to the center slot 226 is drawn through the louvers 224 towards the filters and subsequently collected into the dust container 213”).
However, it is unclear whether the vacuum source is powered by a vacuum motor or not and the vacuum motor is housed with the filter.
Omohundro discuses a vacuum source (see Figure 1 and see Col. 2, lines 23-48 for removing dirt particles) is powered by a vacuum motor (a motor 26, Figure 1) and wherein the vacuum motor is housed with a cylinder filter (32).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the vacuum source of Guth to have a vacuum motor being housed with a cylinder filter, as taught by Omohundro, it is essential that the device have a convenient shape to fit within a desired space (compact construction) and accomplish the desired function as discussed in Col. 1, lines 18-25 of Omohundro.
Regarding claim 2, the modified saw apparatus of Guth shows that the filter is a cylindrical filter (see both Guth’s filter and Omohundro’s filter).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, the modified saw apparatus of Guth shows that the vacuum motor has a form factor that is a “substantially” cylindrical (see the issue of “substantially” above; see the motor 26 in Figure 1 of Omohundro; it is a form factor or housing, having two portions of a cylindrical shape, that is substantially” cylindrical).
Regarding claim 4, the modified saw apparatus of Guth shows that an outer portion of the cylindrical filter comprises pleated media (Para. 50 of Guth “pleated segments”) configured to make contact with an agitation flap (218, Para. 50 of Guth), and wherein the agitation flap facilitates removing dust from the pleated media via a rotation of the cylindrical filter (Para. 50 of Guth “ wherein the filter cleaning flap 218 contacts the pleated segments when the filter cleaning knob is rotated. Moreover, as the rotatable filter 217 rotates, the filter cleaning flap 218 removes dust from the pleated segments”).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guth (US 2019/0201991) in view of Omohundro (US 3217470) and Alfred (DE 3016641 A1 and Translation).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, the modified saw apparatus of Guth shows all of the limitations as stated above except logic circuitry configured to auto-rotate the cylindrical filter.
Alfred shows a vacuum system (Figure 1) including a filter (9) rotated by an electric motor (3) (that can be coupled with the rotatable filter as discussed in Para. 9) and logic circuitry configured to auto-rotate the cylindrical filter (see Para. 15 “the alternating drive connection of …the filter body with the electric motor 3, the drive shaft 21 of the motor 3 is provided with a double coupling 22….The double changeover coupling 22 can be electromagnetic” (emphasis added) that means there is electric circuit for controlling magnets of the coupling 22 for connecting the motor for “auto rotating the filter while the motor is rotating as seen in Figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the vacuum source of Guth to have an electromagnet coupling for connecting the filter to a motor, as taught by Alfred, in order to provide a power to rotate the filter while an electromagnetic coupling (logic circuit to magnets) connects a motor and the filter (Para. 15 of Alfred).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter because claim 6 is free of the prior art because the prior art does not teach or suggest the feature of a sensor component, wherein the logic circuitry is configured to auto-rotate the cylindrical filter in response to a trigger detected by the sensor component, as set forth in claim 6. Regarding claims 7-9 are considered to contain allowable subject matter because they are being dependent from the claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See arts in the 892 form that has a vacuum source in which a motor is within a filter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NHAT CHIEU Q DO whose telephone number is (571)270-1522. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM 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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571) 272-4502. 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.
/NHAT CHIEU Q DO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 11/26/2025