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 (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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marker (US 10478029).
As regarding claim 1, Marker discloses the claimed invention for a debris collection device, comprising: a duct housing detachably connectable to a pneumatic sanding tool (110), the duct housing comprising: a debris duct (“debris” of fig. 2B) in communication with a debris discharge port (240) of the pneumatic sanding tool; and an air duct (210) in communication with an air vent of the pneumatic sanding tool; a spark-arresting device, comprising: a spark-arresting chamber (surrounded by 220) in communication with the debris duct; and a toroidal manifold (fig. 2B; no number) of air nozzle (220) surrounding an exit of the spark-arresting chamber, the toroidal manifold in communication with the air vent and the spark-arresting chamber; and a debris collection bin (130) in communication with the spark-arresting device.
Marker does not disclose the toroidal manifold of air nozzles. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide the toroidal manifold of air nozzles in order to enhance device performance, since it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance, unless a new and unexpected result is produced, since it involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
As regarding claim 6, Marker as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Marker as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the toroidal manifold: is downstream of the spark-arresting chamber; and generates a vacuum to draw debris through the debris duct and the spark-arresting chamber (figs. 1-2C).
As regarding claim 8, Marker as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Marker as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the debris duct and the air duct are separated from one another within the duct housing (fig. 2A).
As regarding claim 9, Marker as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Marker as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein: the duct housing comprises two sub-housings; and portions of the debris duct and the air duct are formed in each sub-housing. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein: the duct housing comprises two sub-housings; and portions of the debris duct and the air duct are formed in each sub-housing in order to reduce part count and manufacturing complexity by allowing the ducts to be created as integrated passages that are completed when the sub-housing are assembled, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1993).
As regarding claim 10, Marker as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Marker as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein: the air duct and the debris duct change an airflow direction and a debris flow direction respectively by between 130 - 180 degrees; and the spark-arresting device changes the airflow direction and the debris flow direction by 90 degrees. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein: the air duct and the debris duct change an airflow direction and a debris flow direction respectively by between 130 - 180 degrees; and the spark-arresting device changes the airflow direction and the debris flow direction by 90 degrees in order to enhance device performance, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marker (US 10478029), as applied supra, and further in view of Dynabrade (“Vacuum Dynafile II Abrasive Belt Tool”; hereinafter Dynabrade).
As regarding claim 2, Marker as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Marker as modified discloses the claimed invention except for a belt guard pivotally attached to the duct housing and covering an abrasive belt of the pneumatic sanding tool on an opposite side of the abrasive belt from the spark-arresting device and the debris collection bin. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide a belt guard pivotally attached to the duct housing and covering an abrasive belt of the pneumatic sanding tool on an opposite side of the abrasive belt from the spark-arresting device and the debris collection bin in order to enhance device performance, since it was known in the art as shown in Dynabrade (figure and title).
Claim(s) 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marker (US 10478029), as applied supra, and further in view of Reid et al (US 20150089907; hereinafter Reid).
As regarding claim 3, Marker as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Marker as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the spark-arresting chamber comprises a debris duct inlet that is off-center from the spark-arresting chamber to induce swirling of debris within the spark-arresting chamber. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the spark-arresting chamber comprises a debris duct inlet that is off-center from the spark-arresting chamber to induce swirling of debris within the spark-arresting chamber in order to enhance device performance, since it was known in the art as shown in Reid (abstract and figs. 1-2).
As regarding claim 4, Marker as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Marker as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein a spark-arresting chamber outlet has a smaller diameter than a main volume of the spark-arresting chamber (Reid – fig. 2).
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marker (US 10478029), as applied supra, and further in view of Tseng (US 6447387).
As regarding claim 5, Marker as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Marker as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein a spark-arresting device outlet has a tapered diameter extending into the debris collection bin. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein a spark-arresting device outlet has a tapered diameter extending into the debris collection bin in order to enhance device performance, since it was known in the art as shown in Tseng (fig. 2; the ‘taper threads portion of collection tube inside the bag 31 of fig. 9).
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marker (US 10478029) in view of Tseng (US 6447387), as applied supra, and further in view of Stirm (US 5349752).
As regarding claim 7, Marker as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Marker as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the debris collection bin: is detachably connected to the spark-arresting device (Tseng – fig. 11).
Marker as modified does not disclose a cylindrical porous filter; a rigid leading plate; and a rigid terminal plate against which air and debris are redirected through the cylindrical porous filter. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide a cylindrical porous filter; a rigid leading plate; and a rigid terminal plate against which air and debris are redirected through the cylindrical porous filter in order to enhance device performance, since it was known in the art as shown in Stirm (rigid plates – 19 of fig. 2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUNG H BUI whose telephone number is (571)270-7077. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 ET.
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, Benjamin L. Lebron can be reached at (571) 272-0475. 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.
/DUNG H BUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights