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 .
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 5, 6, 12 and 17 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.
Claim 5 recites “the reducing part” and there is no antecedent basis for it. It should be “the reduction part”.
Claim 6 recites “both sides” and there is no antecedent basis for these two sides.
Claim 12 recites “another side” and there is no antecedent basis for this second side.
Claim 17 recites “may be” and it is unclear if the feature modified by it is required by claim. The same is issue is in claim 20.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King (US 2021/0401248) in view of Crouser (US 3,866,263).
As to claim 1, King includes a cleaner comprising: a main body (23, 24, 4; Fig. 4 and 6); and a fan motor (26) configured to generate a suction force inside the main body, wherein the fan motor includes: a motor (26; para 84); and wherein the main body includes: a body including: a reduction part (23; para 83) configured to reduce a maximum flow rate while maintaining an average flow rate of air discharged to it (Through-bores 24 of 23 reduce flow rate because they reduce the surface area of flow. An average flow rate is maintained due to flow rate not fluctuating while passing through 24. Also, 23/24 has virtually the same structure as seen in Fig. 5 of the application), and a body outlet (24) configured to guide the air passed through the reduction part (para 83 and Fig. 4); and a filter (4) with at least a portion disposed across the body outlet to filter out rubbish from the air discharged from the body outlet (Fig. 6 and para 76).
King does not include a fan motor with each of a motor configured to generate a rotational force, an impeller rotatable by the motor, and a diffuser configured to guide air discharged from the impeller, and the reduction part receiving air discharged from the diffuser.
Crouser includes a cleaner comprising a fan motor (28, 38, 40) with each of a motor (28) configured to generate a rotational force, an impeller (38) rotatable by the motor, and a diffuser (40) configured to guide air discharged from the impeller (Fig. 4 and column 3, lines 8-16).
It would have been obvious to modify the fan motor to include an impeller and a diffuser located so that air flows past the motor, then the impeller, and then the diffuser, and the motor configured to generate a rotational force, the impeller rotatable by the motor, and the diffuser configured to guide air discharged from the impeller, as taught by Crouser, the impeller providing a way to generate suction, and the diffuser reducing noise made by the air stream. The above combination provides the reduction part receiving air discharged from the diffuser.
As to claim 2, wherein the reduction part (understood as 23 and 25) is formed to block air from the diffuser from being discharged to the filter while passing through the reduction part (23/25 prevent air from flowing to 4 until it exits through 24).
As to claim 3, Crouser provides wherein the reduction part extends in a direction of a rotational axis (A) of the impeller (Fig. 5 of King and Fig. 2 of Crouser show that combining King with Crouser results in the impeller, diffuser, reduction part, and filter extending in the same axial direction).
As to claim 4, Crouser provides wherein the reduction part has a cross-sectional area (A cross section made by a vertical plane) perpendicular to a rotational axis (A) of the impeller that is larger than an area of an outlet of the diffuser (Fig. 5 of King and Fig. 2 of Crouser show that combining King with Crouser results in a reduction part having a larger cross sectional area than that of the diffuser because the reduction part wraps around the diffuser).
As to claim 5, further comprising a reduction member (For claim 5, the body outlet is one of through-bores 24 and the reduction member is another one of said holes) disposed in the reduction part to reduce a flow rate of the air discharged from the diffuser.
As to claim 6, wherein the reduction part has a cylindrical shape with both sides open (The left side of 23 is open and the right side has holes 24; Fig. 4-5).
As to claim 7, Crouser provides wherein the reduction part (For claim 7, the reduction part is 20, which includes elements 21-25) extends from the diffuser to the body outlet (Fig. 4-5 of King and Fig. 2 of Crouser show that combining King with Crouser results in said feature).
As to claim 9, further comprising a filter housing (6) detachably mounted on the body to cover the filter and having a cover outlet (7) that is configured to discharge air passed through the filter to an outside of the main body (para 78 and Fig. 11).
As to claim 10, wherein the filter extends from the body outlet to the cover outlet (4 extends across both 24 and 7; Fig. 4, 6, 13).
As to claim 11, wherein the filter is provided as a high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter (para 77).
As to claim 12, Crouser provides wherein the motor is disposed on another side opposite to a side of the impeller on which the diffuser is disposed (Fig. 4 of Crouser shows motor 28 on the left side of impeller 38 and motor 28 on the right side of impeller 38).
As to claim 13, Crouser provides wherein the diffuser is configured to discharge air in a direction (horizontal) parallel to a rotational axis (A, which is horizontal) of the impeller (Air moves horizontally when moving out of 40; Fig. 4 of Crouser).
As to claim 14, wherein the filter extends along an outer circumferential surface of the main body on which the body outlet is formed (4 extends next to the outer surface of 23; Fig. 10-11).
As to claim 15, wherein the reduction part (understood as 23 and 25) is configured to delay discharge of the air from the diffuser to the filter (23/25 prevent air from flowing to 4 for a certain time until it exits through 24).
As to claim 16, King includes a cleaner comprising: a main body (23, 24, 4; Fig. 4 and 6); and a fan motor (26) configured to generate a suction force inside the main body, wherein the fan motor includes: a motor (26; para 84); wherein the main body includes: a body outlet (24) configured to guide the air discharged to it (para 83 and Fig. 4); a filter (4) with at least a portion extending to surround the body outlet to filter out rubbish from the air discharged from the body outlet (Fig. 4 and 6, and para 76); and a reduction part (23; para 83) extending between the motor and the body outlet to reduce a maximum flow rate of air discharged to it while maintaining an average flow rate of the air (Through-bores 24 of 23 reduce flow rate because they reduce the surface area of flow. An average flow rate is maintained due to flow rate not fluctuating while passing through 24. Also, 23/24 has virtually the same structure as seen in Fig. 5 of the application), the reduction part configured to block the air flowing through it from discharging to the filter while passing through the reduction part (23 blocks air going through it from reaching the filter until is passes through the reduction part).
King does not include a fan motor with each of a motor configured to generate a rotational force, an impeller rotatable by the motor, and a diffuser configured to guide air discharged from the impeller, a body outlet configured to guide the air discharged through the diffuser, and the reduction part extending between the diffuser and the body and blocking air from the diffuser from discharging to the filter while passing through the reduction port.
Crouser includes a cleaner comprising a fan motor (28, 38, 40) with each of a motor (28) configured to generate a rotational force, an impeller (38) rotatable by the motor, and a diffuser (40) configured to guide air discharged from the impeller (Fig. 4 and column 3, lines 8-16).
It would have been obvious to modify the fan motor to include an impeller and a diffuser located so that air flows past the motor, then the impeller, and then the diffuser, and the motor configured to generate a rotational force, the impeller rotatable by the motor, and the diffuser configured to guide air discharged from the impeller, as taught by Crouser, the impeller providing a way to generate suction, and the diffuser reducing noise made by the air stream. The above combination provides a body outlet configured to guide the air discharged through the diffuser, and the reduction part extending between the diffuser and the body and blocking air from the diffuser from discharging to the filter while passing through the reduction port.
As to claim 17, Crouser provides wherein the reduction part has a cross-sectional area (A cross section made by a vertical plane) perpendicular to a rotational axis (A) of the impeller that may be larger than an area of an outlet of the diffuser (Fig. 5 of King and Fig. 2 of Crouser show that combining King with Crouser results in a reduction part having a larger cross sectional area than that of the diffuser because the reduction part wraps around the diffuser).
As to claim 18, further comprising a filter housing (6) having a cover outlet (7) configured to cover the filter and configured to discharge air passed through the filter to an outside of the body (para 78 and Fig. 11), wherein the filter extends from the body outlet to the cover outlet (4 extends across both 24 and 7; Fig. 4, 6, 13).
As to claim 19, Crouser provides wherein the reduction part (understood as 20) includes an extension length in a direction (horizontal) of a rotational axis (A) of the impeller that is greater than or equal to 0.45 times an outer diameter of the diffuser (Fig. 4 of Crouser).
As to claim 20, Crouser provides wherein the motor is disposed on another side opposite to a side of the impeller on which the diffuser may be disposed (Fig. 4 of Crouser shows motor 28 on the left side of impeller 38 and motor 28 on the right side of impeller 38).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King (US 2021/0401248) in view of Crouser (US 3,866,263), and further in view of Li (US 2020/0037834).
As to claim 8, King does not include wherein the filter is detachably mounted on the body.
Li includes a cleaner comprising a filter (61) is detachably mounted on a body (para 100).
It would have been obvious to modify the filter to be detachably mounted on the body, as taught by Li, in order to permit the filter to be replaced or cleaned separately from the body for easier cleaning.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW A. HORTON whose telephone number is (571)270-5039. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 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, Monica S. Carter can be reached at (571) 272-4475. 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.
/ANDREW A HORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723