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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1 – 20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/16/2024 was 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.
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, 4, 7-9, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shibuya (JP-2010035904-A) as cited by Applicant.
Regarding claim 1, Shibuya teaches a dirt separator (23) for separating dirt from an airflow, the dirt separator comprising an air inlet (6), an air outlet (26: Fig. 2), and a filter (27) located between the air inlet (6) and the air outlet (26:Fig. 2), the filter (27) comprising a first face (61, upstream filter surface; Fig. 6), a second face (62, downstream filter surface), and a through-hole (28) extending between the first (61) and second faces (62; Fig. 6), wherein the filter (27) comprises a chamfer (108; Fig. 7b) extending only partially around a periphery of the through-hole (28) on the first face (61; Figs. 6 - 7).
PNG
media_image1.png
596
792
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Shibuya teaches a dirt separator (23) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the filter (27) comprises a further chamfer (annot. Fig. 7b) extending only partially around a further periphery (annot. Fig. 7c) of the through-hole (28) on the second face. (62; Fig. 7, 9, and 10)
Regarding claim 7, Shibuya teaches a dirt separator (23) as claimed in any of claim 4, wherein the chamfer (108) and the further chamfer (annot. Fig. 7b) are located on diametrically opposite sides of the respective periphery (annot. Fig. 7c) and further periphery (annot. Fig. 7c) of the through-hole (28). (Fig. 7, 9, 10)
Regarding claim 8, Shibuya teaches a dirt separator (23) as claimed in Claim 7, wherein: the through-hole (28) comprises a central axis (63) extending between the first (61) and second faces (62); the periphery of the through-hole (28) on the first face (61) comprises a first side (annot. Fig. 7) and a second side (annot. Fig. 7) relative to an axis orthogonal to the central axis (63); the further periphery (annot. Fig. 7c) of the through-hole (28) on the second face (62) comprises a third side (annot. Fig. 9a) corresponding to the first side (annot. Fig. 7), and a fourth side (annot. Fig. 9a) corresponding to the second side (annot. Fig. 7); the chamfer (108) extends around the first side (annot. Fig. 7) of the periphery of the through-hole (28) on the first face (61); and the further chamfer (annot. Fig. 7b) extends around the fourth side (annot. Fig. 9a) of the further periphery (annot. Fig. 7c) of the through-hole (28) on the second face. (62; Fig. 7, 9, 10)
Regarding claim 9, Shibuya teaches a dirt separator (23) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the dirt separator (23) comprises a cyclonic separator (Fig. 5; Paragraph [0002]).
Regarding claim 18, Shibuya teaches a dirt separator (23) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the filter (27) comprises a plurality of through-holes (28), and a plurality of chamfers (annot. Fig. 7) each extending only partially about a corresponding periphery of a through-hole (28) on the first face (61; Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 19, Shibuya teaches a filter (27) for a dirt separator (23), the filter (27) comprising a first face (61), a second face (62), and a through-hole (28) extending between the first (61) and second faces (62; Fig. 6), wherein the filter (27) comprises a chamfer (108) extending only partially around a periphery of the through-hole (28) on the first face (61).
Regarding claim 20, Shibuya teaches a vacuum cleaner (1) comprising a dirt separator (23) as claimed in Claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 2, 3, 5, 6, 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibuya (JP-2010035904-A).
Regarding claim 2, Shibuya teaches a dirt separator (23) as claimed in Claim 1, as discussed above.
Shibuya does not explicitly teach the chamfer (108) to extend around no more than 75%, no more than 60%, or no more than 50% of the periphery of the through-hole (50) on the first face (61); however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Shibuya to further include the chamfer to extend around no more than 75%, no more than 60%, or no more than 50% of the periphery of the through-hole on the first face since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size/shape of a component. A change in size/shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. (MPEP 2144.04)
Regarding claim 3, Shibuya teaches a dirt separator (23) as claimed in Claim 1, as discussed above.
Shibuya does not explicitly teach the through-hole (50) to be substantially circular in cross-section, and the chamfer (108) extends around no more than 180 degrees of the periphery of the through-hole (50) on the first face (61); however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Shibuya to further include since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size/shape of a component. A change in size/shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. (MPEP 2144.04)
Regarding claim 5, Shibuya teaches a dirt separator (23) as claimed in Claim 4, as discussed above.
Shibuya does not explicitly teach the further chamfer (annot. Fig. 7b) to extend around no more than 75%, no more than 60%, or no more than 50% of the further periphery of the through-hole (50) on the second face (62); however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Shibuya to further include since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size/shape of a component. A change in size/shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. (MPEP 2144.04)
Regarding claim 6, Shibuya teaches a dirt separator (23) as claimed in Claim 4, as discussed above.
Shibuya does not explicitly teach the through-hole (50) to be substantially circular in cross-section, and the further chamfer (annot. Fig. 7b) extends around no more than 180 degrees of the periphery of the through-hole (50) on the second face (62); however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Shibuya to further include the through-hole to be substantially circular in cross-section, and the further chamfer extends around no more than 180 degrees of the periphery of the through-hole on the second face since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size/shape of a component. A change in size/shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. (MPEP 2144.04)
Regarding claim 13, Shibuya teaches a dirt separator (23) as claimed in claim 1, as discussed above.
Shibuya does not explicitly teach the through-hole to comprise a first width, the chamfer comprises a second width less than the first width, and a ratio of the second width to the first width is in the range of 0.1 to 0.5; however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Shibuya to further include the through-hole to comprise a first width, the chamfer comprises a second width less than the first width, and a ratio of the second width to the first width is in the range of 0.1 to 0.5 since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size/shape of a component. A change in size/shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. (MPEP 2144.04)
Regarding claim 14, Shibuya teaches a dirt separator (23) as claimed in claim 13, as discussed above.
Shibuya does not explicitly teach the wherein the ratio of the second width to the first width is in the region of 0.3; however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Shibuya to further include the ratio of the second width to the first width is in the region of 0.3 since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size/shape of a component. A change in size/shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. (MPEP 2144.04)
Regarding claim 15, Shibuya teaches a dirt separator (23) as claimed in claim 1, as discussed above.
Shibuya does not explicitly teach the through-hole to be generally circular in cross-section, and comprises a diameter in the range of 200pm to 600pm; however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Shibuya to further include the through-hole to be generally circular in cross-section, and comprises a diameter in the range of 200pm to 600pm since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size/shape of a component. A change in size/shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. (MPEP 2144.04)
Regarding claim 16, Shibuya teaches a dirt separator (23) as claimed in claim 1, as discussed above.
Shibuya does not explicitly teach the through-hole to comprise a first maximal depth between the first and second faces, the chamfer comprises a second maximal depth less than the first maximal depth, and a ratio of the second maximal depth to the first maximal depth is in the range of 0.4 to 0.6; however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Shibuya to further include the through-hole to comprise a first maximal depth between the first and second faces and the chamfer to comprises a second maximal depth less than the first maximal depth, and a ratio of the second maximal depth to the first maximal depth is in the range of 0.4 to 0.6 since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size/shape of a component. A change in size/shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. (MPEP 2144.04)
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibuya (JP-2010035904-A) in view of Matsumoto (US-20010025395-A1).
Regarding claim 10, Shibuya teaches a dirt separator as claimed in claim 1, as discussed above.
Shibuya does not teach a wiping mechanism for wiping the first face.
Matsumoto however teaches a wiping mechanism (21, ring having brush 22) for wiping the side of a filter (11b).
It would have been an obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dirt separator of Shibuya a wiping mechanism, as taught by Matsumoto, as this would allow for precision and cutting costs in manufacturing. Wiping mechanisms help reduce maintenance costs and allow for continuous operation, by preventing any build-ups on filters.
Regarding claim 11, Shibuya teaches a dirt separator as claimed in Claim 10, as discussed above.
Shibuya teaches the portion of the periphery (annot. Fig. 7) of the through-hole (28), the chamfer (108), and a first face (61) from a first position to a second position (Figs. 7a-c; from the right to the left), but does not teach the wiping mechanism that comprises a blade.
Matsumoto however teaches the wiping mechanism (21) that comprises a blade (22, brush) movable relative to the first face (11a) from a first position (Fig. 2) to a second position (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to combine the dirt separator, of Shibuya, to define a wiping mechanism, as taught by Matsumoto, to use a blade that can effectively clean a filter and push dirt. Further, as combined, the wiping mechanism allows for the filter and the through-hole, which will lower maintenance on the filter, and will effectively push the dirt away from the filter and through the hole.
Shibuya as modified by Matsumoto further teaches the chamfer (108) is located such that the blade (22) passes over a portion of the periphery (annot. Fig. 7) of the through-hole (28) that does not comprise the chamfer before passing over the chamfer when moving from the first position to the second position (when moving from right to left, the wiper of Matsumoto would move over the through hole not comprising the chamfer from a first position on the right to a second position, on the left).
Regarding claim 12, Shibuya, as modified, teaches a dirt separator wherein a depth of the chamfer (108) decreases in a direction from the first position to the second position (Figs. 7a-c; from the right to the left).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibuya (JP-2010035904-A) in view of Maclean (US-20200214522-A1).
Regarding claim 17, Shibuya teaches a dirt separator as claimed in claim 1, as discussed above.
Shibuya does not teach a chamfer that is formed on the filter by chemical etching.
Maclean however teaches a chamfer that is formed on the filter by chemical etching (pp. 78, 126).
It would have been an obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dirt separator of Shibuya to define a method of chemical etching, as taught by Maclean, since such a modification would allow for precision and cutting costs in manufacturing. This would precisely allow for manufacturing difficult designs while accomplishing inexpensive tooling.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONAK THAWANI whose telephone number is (571)270-0393. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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 5712724475. 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.
/RONAK THAWANI/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/KATINA N. HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights