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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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 -6 , 8 , 11 , 12, 14-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent 2006/0123853 to Hong . In Reference to Claim 1 Hong discloses a cyclone filter comprising: a body (Fig. 4, annotated by the examiner) including a cylindrical surface extending between a first end (Fig. 4, annotated by the examiner) and a second end (Fig. 4, annotated by the examiner) , the body defining a cavity of the cyclone filter; an air inlet (Fig. 4, 311) formed through the cylindrical surface, the air inlet configured to receive an airflow from a laundry cabinet (As showed in Fig. 2) and to direct the airflow along the cylindrical surface within the cavity; a vortex diverter (Fig. 4, 5, vortex is generated in the cavity) the vortex generated in the extending within the cavity from the second end of the body, the vortex diverter configured to interrupt the airflow as it passes within the cavity between the vortex diverter and the cylindrical surface to separate particulates from the airflow; and a particulate outlet (Fig. 4, annotated by the examiner) formed through the cylindrical surface and axially spaced from the air inlet, the particulate outlet (Fig. 4, annotated by the examiner) configured to direct particulates separated from the airflow toward a particulate receptacle. In Reference to Claim 2 Hong discloses a vortex inducer (Fig. 4, annotated by the examiner) extends within the cavity from the first end and at least partially along the cylindrical surface of the body, the vortex inducer comprising a cylindrical surface (Fig. 4, annotated by the examiner) and configured to direct the airflow from the air inlet in a helical spiral (As showed in Fig. 5) between the cylindrical surface of the body and the cylindrical surface of the vortex inducer. 4 In Reference to Claim 3 Hong discloses the vortex diverter comprises an annular surface extending from the second end of the body, the annular surface of the vortex diverter having a first outer diameter (Fig. 4, annotated by the examiner) that is greater than a second outer diameter (Fig. 4, annotated by the examiner) of the cylindrical surface of the vortex inducer. In Reference to Claim 4 Hong discloses a clean air outlet (Fig. 4, 312) is formed through the first end of the body, the clean air outlet configured to receive clean air drawn from the cavity (As showed in Fig. 5). In Reference to Claim 5 Hong discloses an opening (Fig. 4, annotated by the examiner) of the clean air outlet is between the air inlet and the first end of the body. In Reference to Claim 6 Hong discloses a clean air conduit extends through the clean air outlet and at least partially within the cavity. (Fig. 4, annotated by the examiner) In Reference to Claim 8 Hong discloses the air inlet (Fig. 4, 311) comprises a conduit that extends tangential (As showed in Fig. 4) to the cylindrical surface of the body. In Reference to Claim 11 Hong discloses a laundry system comprising: a cabinet (Fig. 1, 100) including a tumbler for processing laundry and an access port (Fig. 1, 104) extending through the cabinet; a particulate separation system (Fig. 1, 300) for removing particulates from air in the tumbler; and a particulate hopper (Fig. 1, 300) configured to collect the removed particulates and including a cleanout port (As showed in Fig. 8, the conduit is provided at the collection section under the hopper 300 and the outside of the cabinet) cooperating with the access port of the cabinet to provide access for removing the collected removed particulates from the particulate hopper. In Reference to Claim 12 Hong discloses the cabinet further includes a front side panel and a rear side panel (As showed in Fig. 8) disposed on a different side of the cabinet than the front side panel, the access port extending from the front side panel to the rear side panel (As showed in Fig. 8). In Reference to Claim 14 Hong discloses at least a portion of the particulate separation system is disposed within the particulate hopper (As showed in Fig. 4, the vertex inducer is disposed in the hopper) In Reference to Claim 15 Hong discloses the particulate separation system includes a cyclonic separation system (As showed Fig. 8) . In Reference to Claim 16 Hong discloses the cyclonic separation system is integrated with the cabinet. (As showed in Fig. 8, the cyclonic separation systems is a portion of the cabinet) In Reference to Claim 18 Hong discloses the particulate separation system comprises: a body (Fig. 4, annotated by the examiner) including a cylindrical surface extending between a first end and a second end (Fig. 4, annotated by the examiner) , the body defining a cavity (Fig. 4, annotated by the examiner) of the cyclone filter; an air inlet (Fig. 4, 311) formed through the cylindrical surface, the air inlet configured to receive an airflow from the laundry cabinet and to direct the airflow along the cylindrical surface within the cavity; a vortex diverter (Fig. 4, annotated by the examiner) extending within the cavity from the second end of the body, the vortex diverter configured to interrupt the airflow as it passes within the cavity between the vortex diverter and the cylindrical surface to separate particulates from the airflow (As showed in Fig. 5) ; and a particulate outlet (Fig. 4, annotated by the examiner) formed through the cylindrical surface and axially spaced from the air inlet, the particulate outlet configured to direct particulates separated from the airflow toward the particulate receptacle. In Reference to Claim 19 Hong discloses a vortex inducer (Fig. 4, annotated by the examiner) extends within the cavity from the first end and at least partially along the cylindrical surface of the body, the vortex inducer comprising a cylindrical surface (Fig. 4, annotated by the examiner) and configured to direct the airflow from the air inlet in a helical spiral (As showed in Fig. 5) between the cylindrical surface of the body and the cylindrical surface of the vortex inducer. In Reference to Claim 20 Hong discloses the vortex diverter comprises an annular surface extending from the second end of the body, the annular surface of the vortex diverter having a first outer diameter (Fig. 4, annotated by the examiner) that is greater than a second outer diameter (Fig. 4, annotated by the examiner) of the cylindrical surface of the vortex inducer. 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim s 7 , 9, 10 , 13 , 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong . In Reference to Claim 7 Hong discloses a cylindrical portion that extends through the clean air outlet and at least partially within the cavity (As showed in Fig. 4) and a curved portion (Fig. 1, 250) that extends between the cylindrical portion and an airflow source Hong does not teach an oblique angle . According to MPEP: the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art devic e. In Reference to Claim 9 Hong discloses the particulate outlet (Fig. 4, 320) comprises a conduit Hong does not teach the outlet extends tangential to the cylindrical surface of the body. According to MPEP: the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art devic e. In Reference to Claim 10 Hong discloses a central axis (Fig. 4, annotated by the examiner) of the cyclone filter extends between the first end and the second end, Hong does not teach that the air inlet and the particulate outlet formed through the cylindrical surface tangential relative to the central axis. According to MPEP: the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art devic e. In Reference to Claim 13 Hong discloses the hooper. Hong does not teach at least a portion of the particulate hopper is disposed below an outlet of the particulate separation system. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to position the hopper , since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70, (see MPEP §2144.04). In Reference to Claim 17 Hong discloses a single cyclone filter. Hong does not teach an array of one or more cyclone filters. According to MPEP: the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT DEMING WAN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1410 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon- Thur : 8 am to 6 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Michael Hoang can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 57122726460 . 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT DEMING . WAN Examiner Art Unit 3762 /DEMING WAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762 3/12/26