The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means”, “step”, or a generic placeholder but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “particulate matter separation system” in Claims 1-8 and 16-20, “pressure equalization system” in Claims 1, 9, and 17, “vacuum system” in Claim 9, “bag retaining component” in Claim 9, “system of channels” in Claim 12, “component” in Claim 17, and “airtight system” in Claim 19.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
Claim 12 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the system of channels". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims since a system of channels has not been previously claimed. Note that two systems “vacuum system” and “pressure equalization system” are previously present making the scope of the claim unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-11, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Witter et al. US 2009/0307866 (hereafter Witter et al.).
Regarding Claim 1, Witter et al. anticipates:
1. A particulate matter separation system (three-stage shop vacuum cleaner 10) comprising:
a particulate matter collection container (lower primary dust collection drum or barrel 12) defining a lower chamber (cavity within lower primary dust collection drum or barrel 12 below barrel lid portion 22);
a particulate matter separator (cyclonic separator 24) inside of a housing (conic separation chamber 30) defining an upper chamber (collection of volumes above barrel lid portion 22, Figures 2 and 3); and
a bag assembly (disc-shaped pad 66 and poly bag liner (not shown) assembly, Paragraphs [0027] and [0035]) attachable to the collection container and the housing (through installation), the bag assembly comprising a body (disc-shaped pad 66 is an open cell foam) having a pressure equalization system (due to fluid communication with fitting (not shown) and small-diameter hold-down vacuum hose 42) structured as a labyrinth of channels (air passages through open cell structure) internal to the body, the labyrinth communicating with one or more openings in the lower chamber (fitting (not shown) connected to small-diameter hold-down vacuum hose 42) and one or more openings in the upper chamber (through connection of small-diameter hold-down vacuum hose 42 to intermediate hose 36 and vortex tube 34, Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 2, Witter et al. anticipates:
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the separator (cyclonic separator 24) is a cyclonic separator (Paragraph [0028]).
Regarding Claim 4, Witter et al. anticipates:
4. The system of claim 1 further comprising a collection bag (poly bag liner (not shown)) secured within the bag assembly (disc-shaped pad 66 and poly bag liner (not shown) assembly, Paragraphs [0027] and [0035]).
Regarding Claim 5, Witter et al. anticipates:
5. The system of claim 1 further comprising a shop vacuum motor head (vacuum head 50) attachable to the housing (conic separation chamber 30)(Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 6, Witter et al. anticipates:
6. The system of claim 1 further comprising one or more filters (pre-filter paper vacuum bag 46 and HEPA cartridge filter 48) within the upper chamber (collection of volumes above barrel lid portion 22, Figures 2 and 3).
Regarding Claim 7, Witter et al. anticipates:
7. The system of claim 1, wherein the body (disc-shaped pad 66) of the bag assembly (disc-shaped pad 66 and poly bag liner (not shown) assembly, Paragraphs [0027] and [0035]) includes a support (mechanically supports the bottom of poly bag liner that is filled by debris removed by the cyclonic separator 24) for the separator (cyclonic separator 24).
Regarding Claim 8, Witter et al. anticipates:
8. The system of claim 1, wherein the body (disc-shaped pad 66) of the bag assembly (disc-shaped pad 66 and poly bag liner (not shown) assembly, Paragraphs [0027] and [0035]) includes a top subassembly (upper surface formed by open cell structure supporting the poly bag liner) compatible with a bottom subassembly (lower surface formed by open cell structure supporting the poly bag liner), the subassemblies being repeatedly separable (through material thickness, Figure 3 – note that the open cell structure will be compressed by negative pressure from small-diameter hold-down vacuum hose 42 and will return to uncompressed thickness when the vacuum is released through power down or lip portion 22 removal).
Regarding Claim 9, Witter et al. anticipates:
9. A bag assembly (disc-shaped pad 66 and poly bag liner (not shown) assembly, Paragraphs [0027] and [0035]) comprising:
a body (disc-shaped pad 66 is an open cell foam) securable to a vacuum system (three-stage shop vacuum cleaner 10), the body having an upper surface (top surface of disc-shaped pad 66 shown in Figure 3) and a lower surface (bottom surface of disc-shaped pad 66 hidden in Figure 3), the surfaces each having an opening (plurality of open cells) and the body having a pressure equalization system (fluidically connected with fitting (not shown) and small-diameter hold-down vacuum hose 42) comprising one or more channels (air passages through open cell structure) communicating with the openings; and
a bag retaining component (a hold-down feature for securing flexible film bag liner within said drum, Claim 6) securably adjacent to the body and configured to secure a collection bag within the assembly when the bag retaining component is secured to the body (the hold-down feature including a vacuum conduit penetrating a lower portion of said barrel, and an air distributing pad within said barrel to protect the liner from ripping when vacuum is applied from said vacuum conduit, Claim 6).
Regarding Claim 10, Witter et al. anticipates:
10. The assembly of claim 9, wherein the opening (plurality of open cells) extends (fluidically extends through fluid communication with fitting (not shown)) into a vertical channel (small-diameter hold-down vacuum hose 42)(Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 11, Witter et al. anticipates:
11. The assembly of claim 10, wherein the vertical channel (small-diameter hold-down vacuum hose 42) extends into a horizontal channel (intermediate hose 36)(at connection point shown in Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 13, Witter et al. anticipates:
13. The assembly of claim 9, wherein the body (disc-shaped pad 66) comprises at least two body portions (adjacent top portion and bottom portion shown in Figure 2 arbitrarily selected since portion does not have a defined boundary), each body portion has a channel portion (air passages through open cell structure) aligned with the other channel portion (air passages through open cell structure) to form at least a portion of the one or more channels (open cells of adjacent portions would together form air passages for air flow through the disc-shaped pad 66).
Regarding Claim 14, Witter et al. anticipates:
14. The assembly of claim 9, wherein the body (disc-shaped pad 66) forms a unitary piece free of seals or fasteners (Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 15, Witter et al. anticipates:
15. The assembly of claim 9 further comprising one or more seals (rubber or rubber-like seal (not shown) inside the flange 23 to seal the barrel lid portion 22 against the rim of the barrel).
Regarding Claim 16, Witter et al. anticipates:
16. A particulate matter separation system (three-stage shop vacuum cleaner 10) comprising:
a particulate collection container (lower primary dust collection drum or barrel 12) with an open top (open top covered by lid portion 22 during assembly) forming a lower chamber (Figure 3);
an insert (upper dust collection drum 40) removably attachable to the collection container (connected to lid portion 22 which is removable from lower primary dust collection drum or barrel 12 for poly bag liner replacement), the insert defining an upper chamber, the insert housing a particulate matter separator (pre-filter paper vacuum bag 46) having a separator plate (bottom of upper dust collection drum 40 formed by lid portion 22) at a bottom portion (pre-filter paper vacuum bag 46 is supported by lid portion 22, Figure 3) of the particulate matter separator such that the separator plate divides the lower chamber from the upper chamber (Figure 3); and
a shop vacuum motor portion (vacuum head 50) removably attachable to a top portion of the insert (Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 17, Witter et al. anticipates:
17. The system of claim 16 further comprising:
a collection bag (poly bag liner (not shown)); and
a bag assembly (disc-shaped pad 66 – part of the internal assembly inside lower primary dust collection drum or barrel 12 that holds bag, Figure 3) attachable between the collection container (lower primary dust collection drum or barrel 12) and the insert (upper dust collection drum 40)(between lower interior surface of lower primary dust collection drum or barrel 12 and the upper dust collection drum 40 as shown in Figure 3), the bag assembly comprising a body (disc-shaped pad 66 is an open cell foam) having a pressure equalization system (due to fluid communication with fitting (not shown) and small-diameter hold-down vacuum hose 42) structured as a labyrinth of channels (air passages through open cell structure) internal to the body and a component (a hold-down feature for securing flexible film bag liner within said drum, Claim 6) configured to secure the collection bag within the assembly.
Regarding Claim 18, Witter et al. anticipates:
18. The system of claim 16, wherein the particulate matter separator (pre-filter paper vacuum bag 46) forms an integral part of the insert (upper dust collection drum 40) such that the insert's housing forms at least some portions of the separator (shape of pre-filter paper vacuum bag 46 is formed by upper dust collection drum 40 as shown in Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 19, Witter et al. anticipates:
19. The system of claim 16 further comprising one or more seals to provide an airtight system (rubber or rubber-like seal (not shown) inside the flange 23 to seal the barrel lid portion 22 against the rim of the barrel).
Regarding Claim 20, Witter et al. anticipates:
20. The system of claim 16, wherein the insert (upper dust collection drum 40) comprises one or more filters (HEPA cartridge filter 48).
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Witter et al. US 2009/0307866 (hereafter Witter et al.) in view of design choice.
Regarding Claim 3, Witter et al. teaches:
3. The system of claim 1, wherein the body (disc-shaped pad 66) includes a set of coordinating concentric rings (see discussion below) which cooperate with one another to form the labyrinth (air passages through open cell structure).
Witter et al. discloses substantially all the limitations of the claim(s) including a disc-shaped pad 66 made of an open cell foam. Witter et al. does not disclose the inclusion of concentric rings formed on the surface of the body. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the different portions of the disc-shaped pad to include grooves in a pattern of concentric rings which cooperate with one another with the motivation to create predefined air pathways that would have less flow resistance than the passageways through the open cell structure of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding Claim 12, Witter et al. teaches:
12. The assembly of claim 9, wherein the system of channels (air passages through open cell structure) includes one or more grooves (see discussion below).
Witter et al. discloses substantially all the limitations of the claim(s) including a disc-shaped pad 66 made of an open cell foam. Witter et al. does not disclose the inclusion of grooves formed on the surface of the body. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the different portions of the disc-shaped pad to include grooves to create predefined air pathways that would have less flow resistance than the passageways through the open cell structure of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in form PTO-892 Notice of References Cited. Specifically, the prior art references include pertinent disclosures of vacuum cleaners with an upstream dust separator.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30am-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, BRIAN KELLER can be reached on (571) 272-8548. 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.
/MARC CARLSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights