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 § 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 and 3-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carsey (US3314098A) in view of Hyun (US20090293224A1).
Regarding claim 1, Carsey discloses a suction device, comprising: a suction portion suctioning foreign substances from an electrode; (see FIG. 2 and Col. 2, Lines 54-66: a dust collecting system with open booths, hoods or nozzles for suctioning foreign substances; “from an electrode” is an intended use, the suction source is capable of suctioning foreign substances and thus would be capable of suctioning foreign substances from an electrode)
a dust collection portion forming a negative pressure; (exhaust fan 26 with a dust collecting capacity forms a negative pressure in the system; see also Col. 2, Lines 44-54)
and a manifold connected to each of the suction portion and the dust collection portion (manifold 1 connected to the open booths, hoods or nozzles—via feeder pipes 32—and connected to exhaust fan 26—via pipes 22 and 23) and suctioning the foreign substances using the negative pressure of the dust collection portion (manifold 1 suctions the foreign substances with the negative pressure formed by the suction source or exhaust fan 26).
Carsey discloses foreign substances fall to a bottom portion of the cyclone dust collector (29) to be removed from the system, but does not specifically detail that the manifold includes a docking portion discharging foreign substances inside the manifold to the outside.
However, Hyun, in the same or similar field of endeavor related to suction devices, teaches a cyclone (110) comprising a manifold with multiple inlets including a docking portion discharging foreign substances inside the manifold to the outside (see dust separating unit 10 in Hyung FIG. 1 with two air inlets 120 including a dust outlet 130 discharging dust inside the dust separating unit 10 to the outside of the dust separating unit 10, to which container 20 is docked on).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the manifold of Carsey to include a docking portion discharging foreign substances inside the manifold to the outside, as taught by Hyun. One would have been motivated to make such a modification so that “dust with lower density can easily be discharged, less dust with lower density will accumulate on a filter member…thereby facilitating flow of air and improving dust separating performance” (Hyun ¶[0059]).
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated in this rejection. Carsey, as modified, further teaches that the manifold further includes a dust collection connection portion connected to the dust collection portion (manifold 1 includes pipes 22 connecting the manifold 1 via pipe 23 to exhaust fan 26)
and a suction connection portion connected to the suction portion, (manifold 1 includes feeder pipes 32 connected to open, booths, hoods, or nozzles)
and the dust collection connection portion and the suction connection portion protrude in opposite directions from a main body of the manifold (pipes 22 and the feeder pipes 32 protrude in opposite directions from the main body of manifold 1 shown in Carsey FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated in this rejection. Carsey, as modified, does not explicitly teach that the dust collection portion includes a filter that blocks foreign substances having a size larger than a preset size.
However, Hyun teaches a dust collection portion that includes a filter that blocks foreign substances having a size larger than a preset size (cyclone 110 includes filter members 150 that blocks foreign substances having a size larger than the preset size of holes 156)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dust collection portion of Carsey, as modified, to include a filter that blocks foreign substances having a size larger than a preset size, as taught by Hyun. One would have been motivated to make such a modification so that “dust with lower density can easily be discharged, less dust with lower density will accumulate on a filter member…thereby facilitating flow of air and improving dust separating performance” (Hyun ¶[0059]).
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated in this rejection. Carsey, as modified, further teaches that among the foreign substances, foreign substances having a size larger than the preset size are discharged to the outside through the suction connection portion and the docking portion (foreign substances having a size larger than the preset size of the filter holes—as modified in the discussion of claim 4 above—are discharged to the outside of the manifold 1 through the feeder pipes 32 and dust outlet of Hyun—as modified in the discussion of claim 1—which are removed from the cyclone in any suitable manner; see also Carsey Col. 2, Lines 35-43).
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated in this rejection. Carsey, as modified, further teaches that among the foreign substances, foreign substances having a size smaller than or equal to the preset size are discharged to the dust collection portion through the suction connection portion and the dust collection connection portion (foreign substances having a size smaller than or equal to the preset size of the filter holes are discharged to the into the filter of Hyun—as modified in the discussion of claim 4—outside of the manifold 1 through feeder pipes 32 and pipes 22).
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated in this rejection. Carsey, as modified, further teaches that the suction portion includes a first suction portion suctioning foreign substances generated while the electrode is pressed and a second suction portion suctioning foreign substances generated while the electrode is notched, (see Carsey FIG. 1: there are multiple machines 33 that include respective multiple open booths, hoods or nozzles which suction foreign substances from manufacturing processes; “while the electrode is pressed” and “while the electrode is notched” are instances of intended use. As the system suctions foreign substances from different machining units, the system would be capable of having one suction portion for a press step and a second suction portion for a notch process—see also Col. 1, Lines 1-23.)
and the manifold includes a first suction connection portion connected to the first suction portion and a second suction connection portion connected to the second suction portion (manifold 1 includes multiple feeder pipes 32 connected to respective open booths, hoods, or nozzles).
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated in this rejection. Carsey, as modified, further teaches that the negative pressure of the dust collection portion is supplied to the first suction connection portion and the second suction connection portion (the negative pressure formed by exhaust fan 26 is supplied to the feeder pipes 32 via the manifold 1; see also Carsey Col. 3, Lines 15-39).
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated in this rejection. Carsey, as modified, further teaches that the first suction connection portion and the second suction connection portion protrude from a same surface of the main body of the manifold (see Carsey FIG. 1: first and second feeder pipes 32 extend from the same top wall 5 of the main body of manifold 1).
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated in this rejection. Carsey, as modified, does not specifically teach that the manifold further includes an inclined portion having an inclination so that foreign substances suctioned into the manifold slide toward the docking portion.
However, Hyun further teaches that the manifold further includes an inclined portion having an inclination so that foreign substances suctioned into the manifold slide toward the docking portion (see inclined portion, identified in the annotated Hyun FIG. 7 below, has an inclination so dust suctioned in dust separating unit 10 would slide towards the portion where dust outlet 130 meets dust container inlet 21).
PNG
media_image1.png
815
654
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Hyun FIG. 7
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the manifold of Carsey, as modified, to further include an inclined portion with an inclination, as taught by Hyun. One would have been motivated to make such a modification so that “the separated dust can easily enter the dust container” (Hyun ¶[0061]).
Regarding claim 11, the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated in this rejection. Carsey, as modified, does not explicitly teach that the docking portion protrudes downward from the main body of the manifold.
However, Hyun further teaches that the docking portion protrudes downward from the main body of the manifold (see Hyun FIG. 1: dust outlet 130 protrudes downward from the main body cyclone 110 of the dust separating unit 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the docking portion of Carsey, as modified, so that the docking portion protrudes downward from the main body of the manifold, as taught by Hyun. One would have been motivated to make such a modification so that “the dust separated in the cyclone 110 moves downward along the dust outlet 130, and the separated dust can easily enter the dust container 20” (Hyun ¶[0061]).
Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated in this rejection. Carsey, as modified, does not teach that the manifold further includes a window through which the interior of the manifold is viewed.
However, Hyun teaches that the manifold further includes a window through which the interior of the manifold is viewed (dust separating unit 110 further includes opening 112 through which the interior of cyclone 110 of dust separating unit 10 can be viewed; see Hyun ¶[0073]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the manifold of Carsey, as modified, so the manifold further includes a window, as taught by Hyun. One would have been motivated to make such a modification so that “a user can detach the cover member 160 to easily replace the filter members 150 and easily clean the inside of the cyclone 110 and the filter members 150” (Hyun ¶[0073]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carsey (US3314098A) in view of Hyun (US20090293224A1), further in view of Smith (US 8881749 B1).
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated in this rejection. Carsey, as modified, does not teach that the docking portion is connected to a suction hose of an external device.
However, Smith in the same or similar field of endeavor related to suction devices, teaches a docking portion of a manifold is connected to a suction hose of an external device (see Smith FIG. 2: a bottom portion of silica dust control unit 106, which may include a cyclone, is connected to flexible hosing 109 suctioning air from trailer 101d).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the docking portion of Carsey, as modified, so that it is connected to a suction hose of an external device, as taught by Smith. One would have been motivated to make such a modification so that the connection associated with the docking portion may be “bent to provide a path around, over, or under, other structures in [the] system” (Smith Col. 5, Lines 53-65).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Park (US20230397782A1) discloses a foreign matter removal device with a discharge port and a plurality of suction channels.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE JOH whose telephone number is (571)272-0410. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8a-5p.
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, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. 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.
/C.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights