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.
Claims 1-6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP2659821 to Schmitt.
In Reference to Claim 1
Schmitt 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, 3) formed through the cylindrical surface, the air inlet configured to receive an airflow from a laundry cabinet (The Office considers that the laundry is just a working environment of the recited filter) and to direct the airflow along the cylindrical surface within the cavity; a vortex diverter (Fig. 4, 10) extending within the cavity from the second end (Fig. 4, annotated by the examiner) 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, 12) formed through the cylindrical surface and axially spaced (As showed in Fig. 4) from the air inlet, the particulate outlet configured to direct particulates separated from the airflow toward a particulate receptacle (Fig. 4, 13).
In Reference to Claim 2
Schmitt discloses a vortex inducer (Fig. 4, 5) extends within the cavity from the first end (Fig. 4, annotated by the examiner) and at least partially along the cylindrical surface of the body, the vortex inducer comprising a cylindrical surface (As showed in Fig. 4) and configured to direct the airflow from the air inlet in a helical spiral between the cylindrical surface of the body and the cylindrical surface of the vortex inducer.
In Reference to Claim 3
Schmitt discloses the vortex diverter comprises an annular surface (Fig. 4, annotated by the examiner) 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
Schmitt discloses a clean air outlet (Fig. 4, 7) is formed through the first end of the body, the clean air outlet configured to receive clean air drawn from the cavity.
In Reference to Claim 5
Schmitt 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
Schmitt discloses a clean air conduit (Fig. 4, annotated by the examiner) extends through the clean air outlet and at least partially within the cavity.
In Reference to Claim 8
Schmitt discloses the air inlet (Fig. 4, 3) comprises a conduit that extends tangential (As showed in Fig. 4) to the cylindrical surface of the body.
In Reference to Claim 9
Schmitt discloses the particulate outlet (Fig. 4, 12) comprises a conduit that extends tangential (AS showed in Fig. 4) to the cylindrical surface of the body.
In Reference to Claim 10
Schmitt discloses a central axis (Fig. 4, annotated by the examiner) of the cyclone filter extends between the first end (Fig. 4, annotated by the examiner) and the second end (Fig. 4, annotated by the examiner), the air inlet (Fig. 4, 3) and the particulate outlet (Fig. 4, 12) formed through the cylindrical surface tangential relative to the central axis.
In Reference to Claim 21
Schmitt disclose the vortex diverter comprises a diverter wall (Fig. 4, annotated by the examiner) extending from a first end attached to the second end of the body to a distal second end, and a conical cap (Fig. 4, 9) disposed at the second end of the diverter wall.
PNG
media_image1.png
522
617
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitt.
In Reference to Claim 7
Schmitt discloses the clean air conduit having a cylindrical portion (As showed in Fig. 4)
Schmitt does not teach the conduit having 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 device.
Claims 11, 13, 15-20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 2010/0146804 to Ahn in view of Schmitt
In Reference to Claims 11, 15, 18-20 and 22
Ahn discloses A laundry system comprising: a cabinet (Fig. 1, 100) including a tumbler(Fig. 1, 110) for processing laundry and an access panel (Fig. 1, the front panel with the opening 120) providing access to a particulate hopper port (Fig. 3, 410) extending through the cabinet; and a particulate separation system (Fig. 4, 430) for removing particulates from air an airflow in the tumbler and depositing the particulates into the particulate hoppe
Ahn does not teach the separation system as recited by the Applicant.
Schmitt teaches the particulate separation system including: 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 a cyclone filter; an air inlet (Fig. 4, 3) formed through the cylindrical surface; and a vortex diverter (Fig. 4, 10) extending within the cavity from the second end (Fig. 4, annotated by the examiner) 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 the particulates from the airflow
the particulate separation system includes a cyclonic separation system (Fig. 4 shows a cyclonic separation system).
a particulate outlet (Fig. 4, 12) formed through the cylindrical surface and axially spaced from the air inlet (Fig. 4, 3), the particulate outlet configured to direct the particulates separated from the airflow toward the particulate hopper (Fig. 4, 13).
a vortex inducer (Fig. 4, 6) extends within the cavity from the first end (Fig. 4, annotated by the examiner) and at least partially along the cylindrical surface of the body, the vortex inducer comprising a cylindrical surface (As showed in Fig. 4) and configured to direct the airflow from the air inlet (Fig. 4, 3) in a helical spiral between the cylindrical surface of the body and the cylindrical surface of the vortex inducer.
wherein the vortex diverter comprises an annular surface (Fig. 4, annotated by the examiner) 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.
Schmitt disclose the vortex diverter comprises a diverter wall (Fig. 4, annotated by the examiner) extending from a first end attached to the second end of the body to a distal second end, and a conical cap (Fig. 4, 9) disposed at the second end of the diverter wall.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Schmitt into the design of Ahn. Doing so, would result in the separator design of Schmitt being used in the Ahn’s system to separate the dust from the air. Both inventions of Ahn and Schmitt are in the field of air/dust separation, Schmitt teaches an improved vortex tube separator with reduced power consumption.
In Reference to Claim 13
Ahn discloses at least a portion of the particulate hopper (Fig. 3, 500) is disposed below an outlet of the particulate separation system.
In Reference to Claim 16
Ahn discloses particulate separation system is integrated with the cabinet. (As showed in Fig. 2)
In Reference to Claim 17
Ahn discloses one cyclonic separation system only.
Ahn does not teach a plurality of separation system.
According to MPEP: the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 and 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEMING WAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1410. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Michael Hoang can be reached at 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.
DEMING . WAN
Examiner
Art Unit 3762
/DEMING WAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762 7/17/26
Prosecution Insights