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 .
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 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 15 – 28 are pending. Claims 1 – 14 are cancelled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/05/2019 and 06/02/2020 were filed before the first office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 15 – 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raymond (U. S. Patent No. 2,910,717) in view of Jones (WO 2004/081541 A1) as cited by Applicant.
Regarding Independent Claim 15, Raymond teaches a vacuum attachment (vacuum cleaner hose attachment, 10) for a vacuum tube (metallic terminal portion, 12) of a vacuum (Fig. 1) for a non- destructive screening of at least one of an object and a living creature (Fig. 2), the vacuum attachment (10) comprising: a suction tube (casing, 18) having a first end and a second end (Fig. 2), the first end being arranged opposite to the second end (Fig. 2), a suction opening (inlet of nozzle, 22) being arranged at the first end (Fig. 2); a collection unit (filter or strainer, 44 with plate, 30) for the non-destructive screening arranged in the suction tube downstream of the suction opening in a suction direction (Figs. 1 and 2), the collection unit (44) comprising at least one opening for a flow of a suction air stream (a filter or strainer 44 which may readily comprise a conical body of a reticulated or foraminous material, having a closed extremity 46 closely adjacent the rotor 38, and having its larger open end secured in any desired manner to the 70 flange or rim 26 for support thereon), and an adapter unit (reduced neck, 20; Fig. 2) arranged at the second end of the suction tube (18; Fig. 2), the adapter unit (20) being configured to connect to the vacuum tube (12) of the vacuum (Fig. 1).
Raymond does not explicitly teach an air-permeable impact protection material arranged upstream of the at least one opening in the suction direction.
Jones, however, teaches an air-permeable impact protection material (cellulose filter, 13) arranged upstream of the at least one opening (opening of 33) in the suction direction (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vacuum attachment of Raymond to further include an air-permeable impact protection material arranged upstream of the at least one opening in the suction direction, as taught by Jones, to provide an attachment that substantially limits harm to the living creature, thus allowing for the creature to be released in an outside environment.
Regarding Claim 16, Raymond, as modified, teaches the vacuum attachment as recited in claim 15, as discussed above.
Raymond does not teach the air- permeable impact protection material has at least one of a foam structure and a fiber structure.
Jones, however, teaches the air- permeable impact protection material (13) has at least one of a foam structure and a fiber structure (Page 10, line 16; Cellulose).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vacuum attachment of Raymond to further include the air- permeable impact protection material has at least one of a foam structure and a fiber structure, as taught by Jones, to provide an attachment that substantially limits harm to the living creature, thus allowing for the creature to be released in an outside environment.
Regarding Claim 17, Raymond, as modified, teaches the vacuum attachment as recited in claim 15, as discussed above.
Raymond does not teach wherein the air- permeable impact protection material has a porosity of from 10 % to 99 %.
Jones, however, teaches the air- permeable impact protection material has a porosity as cellulose inherently has porosity to the natural voids found in the fibers. Jones however is silent to the range of porosity being between 10 % to 99%.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vacuum attachment of Raymond as modified by Jones, to further include the air- permeable impact protection material has a porosity being between 10 % to 99%, as taught claimed, since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 18, Raymond, as modified, teaches the vacuum attachment as recited in claim 15, as discussed above.
Raymond as modified by Jones does not teach wherein the air- permeable impact protection material has a material thickness of from 1.0 mm to 50.0 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vacuum attachment of Raymond as modified by Jones, to further include the air- permeable impact protection material has a material thickness of from 1.0 mm to 50.0 mm, as taught claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 19, Raymond, as modified, teaches the vacuum attachment (vacuum cleaner hose attachment, 10) wherein the collection unit (Fig.. 2) further comprises a screen disc (30) which is arranged substantially transverse to the suction direction in the suction tube (Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 20, Raymond, as modified, teaches the vacuum attachment (vacuum cleaner hose attachment, 10) wherein, the collection unit (Fig. 2) further comprises a screen basket (44), and the screen basket (44) comprises an opening in a direction towards the suction opening (a filter or strainer 44 which may readily comprise a conical body of a reticulated or foraminous material, having a closed extremity 46 closely adjacent the rotor 38, and having its larger open end secured in any desired manner to the 70 flange or rim 26 for support thereon), a side wall which adjoins the opening (Fig. 2), and a screen bottom (46) which is arranged opposite to the opening (Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 21, Raymond, as modified, teaches the vacuum attachment (vacuum cleaner hose attachment, 10) wherein the side wall of the screen basket (44) is arranged to be at least one of radially circumferential and tapered in the suction direction (Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 22, Raymond, as modified, teaches the vacuum attachment as recited in claim 20, as discussed above.
Raymond does not teach wherein the impact protection material is arranged upstream of at least one of the side wall and of the screen bottom in the suction direction.
However, Raymond as modified by Jones would teach the limitations as the impact protection material of Jones is arranged upstream of the opening of Raymond (claim 15) and thus the impact protection material is arranged upstream of at least one of the side wall and of the screen bottom (46) in the suction direction (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vacuum attachment of Raymond to further include an air-permeable impact protection material arranged upstream of the at least one opening in the suction direction, as taught by Jones, to provide an attachment that substantially limits harm to the living creature, thus allowing for the creature to be released in an outside environment.
Regarding Claim 23, Raymond, as modified, teaches the vacuum attachment (vacuum cleaner hose attachment, 10) wherein the suction tube (18) has a cross-section which is constant (Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 24, Raymond, as modified, teaches the vacuum attachment (vacuum cleaner hose attachment, 10) wherein the adapter unit (20) is tapered in the suction direction so that suction tubes with different internal diameters can be fitted thereon (Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding Claim 25, Raymond, as modified, teaches the vacuum attachment (vacuum cleaner hose attachment, 10) wherein the suction tube (18) and the adapter unit (20) are formed integrally (Fig. 1).
Claims 26 – 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raymond (U. S. Patent No. 2,910,717) in view of Jones (WO 2004/081541 A1) as cited by Applicant and Oswald (DE102013018532 A1) as cited by Applicant.
Regarding Claim 26, Raymond, as modified, teaches the vacuum attachment as recited in claim 15, as discussed above.
Raymond does not teach the vacuum attachment further comprises: a lid which is configured to be opened and closed so as to open and close the suction opening.
Oswald, however, teaches the vacuum attachment (1) further comprises: a lid (3; Fig. 1A) which is configured to be opened and closed so as to open and close the suction opening (Figs. 1A – 1C).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vacuum attachment of Raymond to further include a lid which is configured to be opened and closed so as to open and close the suction opening, as taught by Oswald, to provide an attachment that substantially limits harm to the living creature, thus allowing for the creature to be released in an outside environment.
Regarding Claim 27, Raymond, as modified, teaches the vacuum attachment as recited in claim 26, as discussed above.
Raymond does not teach vacuum attachment wherein the lid comprises a lateral projection which extends over an outer diameter of the suction tube so that an elongated object can press against the lateral projection to thereby open the lid.
Oswald, however, teaches the lid (3) comprises a lateral projection (4) which extends over an outer diameter of the suction tube (Fig. 1B) so that an elongated object can press against the lateral projection to thereby open the lid (an elongated object can engage an end of the chain, 4 to open the flap).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vacuum attachment of Raymond to further include the lid comprises a lateral projection which extends over an outer diameter of the suction tube so that an elongated object can press against the lateral projection to thereby open the lid, as taught by Oswald, to provide an attachment that allows for the creature to be released in an outside environment, without harm to the creature.
Regarding Claim 28, Raymond, as modified, teaches the vacuum attachment as recited in claim 26, as discussed above.
Raymond does not teach the lid comprises holes for the flow of the suction air stream.
Oswald, however, teaches the lid (3) comprises holes (5) for the flow of the suction air stream (Figs. 1A – 1C).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vacuum attachment of Raymond to further include the lid comprises holes for the flow of the suction air stream, as taught by Oswald, to provide an attachment that allows for the creature to be released in an outside environment, without harm to the creature.
Conclusion
Art made of record, however, not relied upon for the current rejection is as follows: U. S. Patent Publication 2022/0232814 A1 to Lavoie teaches an invention that allows safe and easy capture, secure containment, visual examination and release or other disposition of small invertebrate specimens. It interfaces with a vacuum cleaner or other source of negative air pressure and is comprised of three main parts or segments: A collection segment used in capturing and containing insect specimens and the like, an attachment segment used in attaching the apparatus to a vacuum cleaner or similar suctioning device, and an intermediate screen segment used to attach these two segments and keep the specimens from being sucked into the suctioning device.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATINA N HENSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8024. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday; 5:30am to 3:30pm.
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 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.
/KATINA N. HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723