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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/04/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s first argument is quoted below:
“Applicant respectfully submits that there would not have been motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the cited references as there is no guidance as to where the flap member of Pujol would be placed within the device of Lee.”…
…“The Office fails to explain where a flap member would be placed within the device of Lee. And Lee provides no indication or teaching as to where a flap member would be situated or how it would be activated.”
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. 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). In this case, examiner relied on the secondary reference of Pujol to teach the claimed flap member that is coupled to the chamber as claimed. The chamber as claimed has been interpreted as the outer housing 261 which includes both the outer receptacle 262 and the outer dust receptacle 264 of Lee as also indicated at Figs. 4, 5 of Lee. The inlet of the chamber has been interpreted as the housing inlet 272 of Lee which extends into an opening at the outer receptacle 262 that allows flow of fluid into the receptacle. Therefore, as claimed the flap member which is “coupled to the chamber” and “configured to move to an open position in response to an introduction of the gas stream”, would be at the inlet region or opening region of the outer receptacle 262 and the inlet 272 since a flap placed at this position/location would be able to “introduce” the gas stream into the chamber.
Furthermore, in response to applicant's argument above, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Applicant’s second argument is quoted below:
The Office's rationale for combining the teachings of Pujol and Lee is to efficiently allow fluid flow into the chamber and prevent backflow into the inlet of Lee. But Lee already addresses the problem of fluid backflow. The device of Lee includes a structural feature to prevent dust from flowing back into the inlet - skirt 223. Lee at col. 5, lines 6-64. "Skirt 223 is formed at a bottom end of the bottom part 219, and prevents dust collected in an outer dust receptacle 264 from flowing back toward the first and second inlets 232 and 234." Id. "The entering air loses rapidly its rotation force by the skirt 223 disposed at the bottom end of the inner receptacle 221, and rises up. At this time, some dust rises with rising air, but it crashes against the skirt 223 and falls again into the outer dust receptacle 264." Id. at col. 6, lines 42-47. Accordingly, adding a flap member to the device of Lee would amount to extra work and greater expense because skirt 223 already addresses the problem of fluid backflow. As a result, there would be no motivation for one of ordinary skill to modify Lee as suggested.
In response to the argument above, please see response to the first argument above. Note that the addition of the flap member at the inlet side of the chamber would allow efficient and effective flow movement into the chamber 262 as well as prevent backflow of the fluid out of the inlet 272 based on the fluid movement as described in the rejection below. The skirt 223 of Lee is at a bottom region of the chamber and thus would prevent dust collected in an outer dust receptacle 264 from flowing back toward the first and second inlets 232 and 234 while the modification of a flap member is on the top portion of the chamber (i.e., at inlet region 272 as described above) which serves to prevent backflow of the fluid into inlet 272 (see rejection below).
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) 1, 2, 4 – 8, 11, 13, 14, 17, 19, 21 - 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 7,662,201 B2 to Lee (hereinafter “Lee”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0132117 A1 to Pujol et al. (hereinafter “Pujol”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0133370 A1 to Yoo et al. (hereinafter “Yoo”).
Regarding Claims 1 and 11, Lee teaches a sample collection system (see dust collecting system described in the abstract, Col. 1, lines 12 - 15, see Figs. 4, 5) for an extraterrestrial vehicle, the system comprising:
an inlet conduit (see housing inlet pipe 274, Fig. 4) configured to receive a gas stream (see Col. 6, lines 4 – 22 describing air entering into the housing inlet pipe 274 through the inlet 272);
a chamber (see outer housing 261 comprising the outer receptacle 262 and the outer dust receptacle 264, Fig. 4, see Col. 6, lines 4 – 222) having an inlet fluidly coupled to the inlet conduit (see arrangement of housing inlet 272, inlet pipe 274 arranged in order to allow air to enter the inner space of the receptacle 262, see Col. 6, lines 4 – 11), the inlet and chamber configured to induce cyclonic flow to separate one or more particles from the gas stream (see Col. 6, lines 36 – 47 describing the air that enters the receptacle 262 (i.e., chamber as claimed) through the housing inlet 272 as seen at the arrow F in Fig. 5, being rotated downward in a space between the inner receptacle 221 and the outer receptacle 262 as illustrated by the arrow G and the large dust or dirt is separated from the air by the centrifugal force to fall into a space between the inner receptacle 266 and the outer dust receptacle 264, hence reading on the invention as claimed);
a container (see cyclone body 220 comprising the inner receptacle 221, Figs. 4, 5) removably disposed within the chamber (see arrangement at Figs. 4, 5 illustrating the removable arrangement, see Col. 5, lines 49 – 55), the container (220) having a first opening fluidly coupled to the inlet (see multiple openings at first inlet 232, second inlet 234 that are in fluid communication with the inlet 274, 272, Figs. 4, 5, see Col. 5, lines 53 – 64) and an outlet (see outlet at discharging port 242, Fig. 4, see Col. 5, lines 49 – 58);
an exhaust conduit (see discharging air guiding pipe 284, Fig. 4, see Col. 6, lines 11 - 15) fluidly coupled to the outlet (see arrangement at Fig. 4).
Lee teaches the claimed invention except for a flap member coupled to the chamber, the flap member configured to move to an open position in response to an introduction of the gas stream and move to a closed position upon removal of the gas stream.
Pujol, in the field of a pressure support system with a humidifier having a valve to prevent back-flow of fluid, teaches that it is known to use a flap member coupled to the chamber (see any of flap-like valve elements such as 82 of Figs. 4, 5, and/or 164 of Figs. 6 - 8, and/or 902 of Fig. 28 and/or 930, Fig. 29 and/or 960, 972 of Figs. 30A-30B) the flap member configured to move to an open position in response to an introduction of the gas stream and move to a closed position upon removal of the gas stream (see for instance arrangement of flapper valve 930, Fig. 29 and description at paragraph [0100] stating “During normal operation, the flow of gas provided by the pressure support device in conduit 932 has a pressure that is sufficient to cause valve 930 to move to the open position and remain there, However, when this flow is reduced or eliminated, flapper valve 930 is configured, arranged, and/or weighted or biased such that tilting the pressure support system so that the humidifier is above the pressure support device, e.g., rotating the system clockwise about axis 924, automatically causes the valve to shift from the open to the closed position.” and/or see 960, Fig. 30a and paragraph [0104] stating “In operation, when the flow of gas to the inlet falls below a threshold level, valve 960 closes, as indicated by arrow 964, thereby preventing a backflow of fluid out of the inlet. This arrangement is best suited for situation in which the a reduction or a cessation in the flow of gas to the inlet is intended to cause the inlet to be blocked”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a flap like member of Pujol into Lee in order to efficiently and effectively allow the flow of the fluid to enter the chamber and also prevent backflow of the fluid out of the inlet based on the fluid movement.
Lee in view of Pujol as modified above teaches the claimed invention except for a filter disposed between the exhaust conduit and the chamber.
Yoo, in the field of cyclone dust collecting apparatus, teaches that it is known to use a filter disposed between the exhaust conduit and the chamber (see filter 102, Fig. 10, see paragraph [0089]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use filter of Yoo into Lee in view of Pujol, in order to prevent fine dust moving with the cleaned air discharged from the cyclone body through the discharge or exhaust conduit.
Insofar as Lee may be construed as not explicitly teaching the use of the system for an extraterrestrial vehicle, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the structure in a variety of region including that of extraterrestrial vehicles, since Lee does not exclude the use to a particular area. In addition, note that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding Claim 2, Lee as modified above teaches wherein the container (221) is configured to receive the induced cyclonic flow (see arrangement at Fig. 5 illustrating multiple arrows that is being communicated within the chamber and container).
Regarding Claims 4 and 13, Lee in view of Pujol in view of Yoo as modified above teaches wherein the flap member (see multiple flap members of Pujol) conforms to a sidewall of the chamber when in the closed position (see for instance arrangement at Figs. 30A, 30B of Pujol which conforms to the sidewall of the chamber when closed).
Regarding Claim 5, Lee in view of Pujol in view of Yoo as modified above teaches the claimed invention except for wherein the flap member is made from a polyimide film. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a flap member made from polyimide film, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding Claim 6, Lee as modified above teaches further comprising a cap member (see cover 290, Figs. 4, 5, see Col. 5, lines 49 – 52) coupled between the exhaust conduit and the chamber (see arrangement at Figs. 4, 5).
Regarding Claim 7, Lee in view of Pujol in view of Yoo as modified above teaches wherein the filter (see 102, Fig. 10 of Yoo) is disposed between the cap member and the chamber (see arrangement at Figs. 4, 5 of Lee and combination with the arrangement of the filter 102, Figs. 9, 10, 12 of Yoo).
Regarding Claim 8, Lee as modified above teaches wherein the chamber (262) includes an opening on one end, the opening sized to receive the container (see arrangement at Fig. 4 illustrating a bottom opening at chamber 262 which is sized to receive the container 221).
Regarding Claim 14, Lee as modified above teaches further comprising moving the container into a first position through an opening on one end of the container prior to flowing the gas stream (see arrangement at Fig. 4 of Lee which illustrates individual components of the system which can be moved or positioned in place to carry out the collection, hence reading on the invention as claimed).
Regarding Claims 17 and 23, Lee as modified above teaches further comprising slowing the flow of the gas stream with one or more deflector plates that extend into at least one of the chamber or container (see for instance skirt 223 that serves as the claimed “deflector plate” since the skirt 223, Fig. 4 of Lee does deflect the stream of air within the chamber, see Col. 5, lines 53 – 66, Col. 6, lines 42 – 47, hence reading on the invention as claimed).
Regarding Claim 19, Lee as modified above teaches wherein the separation of the particles occurs when the gas stream contacts the walls of the chamber or container (see arrangement at Figs. 4, 5 and Col. 6, lines 36 – 47 of Lee).
Regarding Claims 21 and 22, Lee in view of Pujol in view of Yoo as modified above teaches wherein the filter (see 102, Fig. 10 of Yoo) is configured to prevent passage of the one or more particles within the gas stream (see paragraph [0089] of Yoo).
Claim(s) 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Pujol in view of Yoo and further in view of CA 3003947 A1 to Despaux (hereinafter “Despaux”).
Regarding Claim 20, Lee in view of Pujol in view of Yoo teach the claimed invention except for purging the inlet conduit and chamber with a pressurized gas.
Despaux, in the field of granular solid sampling devices, teaches purging the inlet conduit and chamber with a pressurized gas (see paragraphs [0048], [0061] describing injecting gaseous fluid 12 under pressure into the conduit in order to extract the retained particles within).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use injecting pressurized air of Despaux into Lee in view of Pujol in view of Yoo, in order to aid in the extraction of any particles from the sampling device. The modification further allows effective cleaning of the components of the collection system.
Claim(s) 9, 10, 15, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Pujol in view of Yoo and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 8,480,953 to Massaro (hereinafter “Massaro”).
Regarding Claims 9 and 15, Lee in view of Pujol in view of Yoo as modified above teaches the claimed invention except for a handling mechanism operably coupled to the chamber and configured to move the container between a first position within the chamber and a second position external to the chamber.
Massaro, in the field of manipulating vessels comprising samples, teaches that it is known to use a handling mechanism operably coupled to the chamber and configured to move the container between a first position within the chamber and a second position external to the chamber (see Col. 1, lines 20 – 45, Col. 8, lines 21 – 36 describing manipulator 200 for moving vessel 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the manipulator of Massaro into Lee in view of Pujol in view of Yoo, in order to provide high throughput of the system hence improving overall efficiency and time of processing of the system.
Regarding Claims 10 and 16, Lee in view of Pujol in view of Yoo in view of Massaro as modified above teaches wherein the handling mechanism further comprises a carousel configured to receive a plurality of containers (Col. 8, lines 21 – 36 and Figs. 1 – 4 of Massaro).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form accompanying this office action comprising the following relevant prior arts:
Moon, Thomas Anthony et al. (CN 106345783 A) teaches an extractor of sectional type positive pressure air flow system used for a variety of applications including welding, cutting, metal processing, wood processing and in other applications of smoke or air entraining component extracted from an airflow system. The invention includes a movable shutter baffle plate barrier, slider barrier etc. included in a gas flow manifold to restrict flow of gas or used to control positive pressure component.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARRIT EYASSU whose telephone number is (571)270-1403. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 9:00AM - 6:00PM.
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, Laura E. Martin can be reached at (571) 272-2160. 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.
/MARRIT EYASSU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855