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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the outlet port cross-sectional flow area is the same as or larger than a cross-sectional area of the conduit portion in the plane.”. Examiner notes para 0090 states “optionally, the cross-sectional area of the outlet port 122 may be larger than one or more of the cross-sectional flow area of the inlet conduit extending the cyclone air inlet. Therefore examiner respectfully submits the current specification does not provide support for outlet cross-sectional flow area is the same as a cross-sectional area of the conduit portion in the plane. Claims 2-17 depend on claim 1 and hence are also rejected.
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 1-4, 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greene et al(7341611) taken together with Russian reference(RU2752405C1).
Greene et al in figure 2 teaches a surface cleaning apparatus(vacuum cleaner in figure 1) comprising: an air flow path from a dirty air inlet(air inlet 27) to a clean air outlet(central outlet opening 29) with a cyclone(separation and collection container 21; column 5 line 2 stating “air then travels tangentially within sidewall 22) and a motor(18) and fan assembly(part of motor to provide suction airflow) provided in the air flow path, the cyclone comprising a cyclone air inlet(air inlet 27) and a cyclone axis of rotation centrally positioned in the cyclone and extending between an outlet end of the cyclone and an axially opposed end, a cyclone sidewall(sidewall 22) extends between the outlet end and the axially opposed end, the axially opposed outlet end comprising an outlet end wall(bottom 25) and a vortex finder extending inwardly into the cyclone, the vortex finder comprising a conduit portion(central column 28) extending inwardly into the cyclone and a screen portion(screen 34), the conduit portion having an inlet end and an outlet end, and the screen portion extending inwardly into the cyclone from the inlet end of the conduit portion, the conduit portion has a radial width with a radial inner surface and a radial outer surface at the outlet end of the conduit portion, wherein, in a plane that is transverse to the cyclone axis of rotation and that extends through the conduit portion, the radial outer surface is located a first radial width from an inner surface of the cyclone sidewall and the radial inner surface is located a second radial width from the inner surface of the cyclone sidewall, the cyclone air inlet having an outlet port.
Greene et al is silent to wherein the outlet port cross-sectional flow area is the same as or larger than a cross-sectional area of the conduit portion in the plane.
Russian reference in figure 1 teaches a cyclonic separator including a flue gas inlet pipe 3 having a width leading into a cyclonic separation chamber(housing 1; para 0020 stating “transition of the resulting gas mixture into a rotational vortex motion), and a vortex finder(vertical conduit portion of cooled gas mixture outlet pipe 4 in figure 1 and tapered portion), wherein an outlet port of the flue gas inlet pipe 3 has an outlet port cross-sectional flow area in the direction transverse to the direction of flow through the outlet port, and wherein the outlet port cross-sectional flow area is the same as or larger than a cross-sectional area of a conduit portion(vertical portion of cooled gas mixture outlet pipe 4 in figure 1) in the plane (Examiner noting diameter of inlet pipe 3 stated as 0.43 X D, and diameter of vertical conduit portion of cooled gas mixture outlet pipe 4 less than .7 to .9 X D of tapered portion, therefore outlet port cross-sectional flow area is the same as or larger than a cross-sectional area of the vertical conduit portion in the plane). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an outlet port cross-sectional flow area of the air inlet 27 of Greene et al is the same as or larger than a cross-sectional area of a vortex finder conduit portion of Greene et al to provide for a larger cross section for air inlet flow for the air inlet of Greene et al. Examiner notes the tapered section of the outlet piping of Russian reference would be equivalent to the screen portion in Greene et al, and only the vertical conduit portion in Russian reference is equivalent to the claimed vortex finder conduit portion.
Greene et al taken together with Russian reference is further silent as to wherein the width has a dimension that is between the first radial width and the second radial width. Examiner notes Greene together with Russian reference provides an air inlet with an outlet port width(noting Russian reference with a width projecting into the cyclone separator), a first radial width for the vortex finder conduit portion and a second radial width for the vortex finder conduit portion, and the width of the outlet port, the first radial width, and the second radial width are result effective variables. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to adjust , through routine experimentation, the outlet port width of Greene together with Russian reference to have a dimension that is between the first radial width and the second radial width, in order to provide for a more compact cyclone container with increased separation efficiency for particulate within the air flow.
With regards to claim 2, Greene et al taken together with Russian reference is silent as to wherein the cyclone has a diameter of up to 100 mm. Greene et al in column 5 states that the cyclone cross section has a diameter of about 110 mm, and noting that a cyclone cross section is a result effective variable, therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to adjust, through routine experimentation, the cyclone diameter to up to 100 mm, so that a cyclone diameter is optimized based on a required separation efficiency.
With regards to claim 3, Greene et al taken together with Russian reference is silent as to wherein the vortex finder has a diameter of 25 mm to 40 mm. Greene et al in column 5 states that the column 28 has an outer diameter of about 46 mm, and noting that a vortex finder diameter is a result effective variable, therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to adjust, through routine experimentation, the vortex finder diameter to within 25mm to 40mm, so that a vortex finder diameter is optimized based on a required separation efficiency.
With regards to claim 4, Greene et al taken together with Russian reference is silent as to wherein the cyclone has a diameter of up to 80 mm and the conduit portion of the vortex finder has a diameter of up to 40 mm. Greene et al in column 5 states that the cyclone cross section has a diameter of about 110 mm, and noting that a cyclone cross section is a result effective variable, therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to adjust, through routine experimentation, the cyclone diameter to up to 80 mm, so that a cyclone diameter is optimized based on a required separation efficiency. Likewise, Greene et al in column 5 states that the column 28 has an outer diameter of about 46 mm, and noting that a vortex finder diameter is a result effective variable, therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to adjust, through routine experimentation, the vortex finder diameter to of up to 40 mm so that a vortex finder diameter is optimized based on a required separation efficiency.
With regards to claim 9, Greene et al taken together with Russian reference further teaches wherein the cyclone air inlet is a tangential air inlet wherein the outlet port is provided in the cyclone sidewall.
With regards to claim 10, Greene et al taken together with Russian reference further teaches wherein the cyclone has an air flow energy utilization for air flow through the cyclone of 1 CFM or more per 1 Watt (Examiner notes that the limitations of claim 10 are directed to a function of the claimed cyclone, therefore the surface cleaning apparatus of Greene et al taken together with Russian reference would be expected to provide for the claimed air flow energy utilization).
With regards to claim 11, Greene et al taken together with Russian reference is silent as to wherein the cyclone has a diameter of up to 100 mm. Greene et al in column 5 states that the cyclone cross section has a diameter of about 110 mm, and noting that a cyclone cross section is a result effective variable, therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to adjust, through routine experimentation, the cyclone diameter to up to 100 mm, so that a cyclone diameter is optimized based on a required separation efficiency.
With regards to claim 12, Greene et al taken together with Russian reference is silent as to wherein the vortex finder has a diameter of 25 mm to 40 mm. Greene et al in column 5 states that the column 28 has an outer diameter of about 46 mm, and noting that a vortex finder diameter is a result effective variable, therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to adjust, through routine experimentation, the vortex finder diameter to within 25mm to 40mm, so that a vortex finder diameter is optimized based on a required separation efficiency.
With regards to claim 13, Greene et al taken together with Russian reference is silent as to wherein the cyclone has a diameter of up to 80 mm and the conduit portion of the vortex finder has a diameter of up to 40 mm. Greene et al in column 5 states that the cyclone cross section has a diameter of about 110 mm, and noting that a cyclone cross section is a result effective variable, therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to adjust, through routine experimentation, the cyclone diameter to up to 80 mm, so that a cyclone diameter is optimized based on a required separation efficiency. Likewise, Greene et al in column 5 states that the column 28 has an outer diameter of about 46 mm, and noting that a vortex finder diameter is a result effective variable, therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to adjust, through routine experimentation, the vortex finder diameter to of up to 40 mm so that a vortex finder diameter is optimized based on a required separation efficiency.
With regards to claim 14, Greene et al taken together with Russian reference further teaches wherein the air flow energy utilization is 1.1 CFM per 1 Watt or more(Examiner notes that the limitations of claim 14 are directed to a function of the claimed cyclone, therefore the surface cleaning apparatus of Greene et al taken together with Russian reference would be expected to provide for the claimed air flow energy utilization).
With regards to claim 15, Greene et al taken together with Russian reference further teaches wherein the air flow energy utilization is 1.25 CFM per 1 Watt or more(Examiner notes that the limitations of claim 14 are directed to a function of the claimed cyclone, therefore the surface cleaning apparatus of Greene et al taken together with Russian reference would be expected to provide for the claimed air flow energy utilization).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8,16,17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the conduit portion is tapered.”. Greene et al taken together with Russian reference teaches a conduit portion, however Greene et al taken together with Russian reference does not teach or suggest wherein the conduit portion is tapered. Claims 6 and 16 depends on claim 5 and hence would also be allowable upon incorporation of claim 5 into claim 1.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the screen is tapered at an angle of up to 25°.”. Greene et al taken together with Russian reference teaches a screen, however Greene et al taken together with Russian reference does not teach or suggest wherein the screen is tapered at an angle of up to 25°.
Claim 8 recites “wherein the cyclone air inlet is an axial air inlet, wherein the outlet port is provided in an inlet end wall of the cyclone.”. Greene et al taken together with Russian reference teaches a cyclone air inlet is a tangential air inlet, however Greene et al taken together with Russian reference does not teach or suggest wherein the cyclone air inlet is an axial air inlet, wherein the outlet port is provided in an inlet end wall of the cyclone.
Claim 17 recites “wherein the screen is tapered at an angle of 2°-15°.”. Greene et al taken together with Russian reference teaches a screen, however Greene et al taken together with Russian reference does not teach or suggest wherein the screen is tapered at an angle of 2°-15°.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-17 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12075966. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT A HOPKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-1159. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 6am-4pm.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 5712707872. 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.
/ROBERT A HOPKINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
July 14, 2026
Prosecution Insights