DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 6 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The “discharge port” appears to be a double inclusion error.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 & 7 & 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Memory (7,798,078).
Memory (7,798,078) disclose(s):
material collector constituting a vacuum box, figure(s) 1;
housing 16 comprising at least one wall, itself comprising a first end wall, 70 figure(s) 2, & second end wall 72, figure(s) 2;
housing interior, within figure(s) 4;
inlet(s) port, upper open periphery of 16, column 7, line(s) 66, et seq.;
material mover comprising an auger 90;
discharge port, at 18, figure(s) 1;
at least two housing support member(s) 58;
sloped floor walls, 80, best seen figure(s) 4;
door 98;
controller, column 5, line(s) 40;
exhaust port, where 218 meets 16
housing length, left to right, figure(s) 2.
With regard to claim(s) 7, Memory (7,798,078) disclose(s) support member(s) 50, forming a contiguous ring, of what is clearly substantial thickness setting the bottom surface of the housing back & forming an envelope.
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 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Memory (7,798,078) in view of Nussbaumer (6,672,342).
Memory (7,798,078) lack(s) a temperature sensor and controller that determines fill level as a function of housing temperature. Nussbaumer (6,672,342) teach(es) determining fill level as a function of housing temperature in a housing employing bulk material discharge; column 2, third paragraph.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Memory (7,798,078) to substitute determining fill level as a function of housing temperature in order to increase versatility as taught by Nussbaumer (6,672,342).
Claims 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Memory (7,798,078) in view of Hetcher et al. (9,045,072).
Memory (7,798,078) lack(s) a housing fill level visual indicator. Hetcher et al. (9,045,072) teach(es) a housing fill level visual indicator in a vacuum material collector.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Memory (7,798,078) to a housing fill level visual indicator in order to accommodate practical considerations as taught by Hetcher et al. (9,045,072).
Claims 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Memory (7,798,078) in view of Roberge et al. (10,407,256).
With regard to claim(s) 10, Memory (7,798,078) lack(s) a multiport extension connected to the inlet(s) port distributing to at least two locations along the length. Roberge et al. (10,407,256) teach(es) a multiport extension connected to the first end wall and distributing to at least two locations along the length in a pneumatic bulk material collector.
With regard to claim(s) 11, note Memory (7,798,078) disclose(s) a door whose periphery at least spans the second end wall.
With further regard to claim(s) 10 & 11, “pneumatically connected” does not preclude(s) either vacuum or positive pressure. Also, any point at which an extension was connected to the housing would by definition constitute an inlet(s) port. Further, Memory (7,798,078) would indeed exhaust a minority of material via the exhaust port.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Memory (7,798,078) to provide a multiport extension connected in order to increase loading speed as taught by Roberge et al. (10,407,256).
Conclusion
Claims 4-5 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 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sewell (2019/0193960) disclose(s), inter alia, an auger offloading vacuum collector with ribs.
Wilkinson et al. (10,457,501) disclose(s), inter alia, vacuum unloading of reaction vessels.
Van Doorn et al. (3,292,016) disclose(s), inter alia, an inverse control scheme relative to claim(s) 4.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A DILLON JR whose telephone number is (571)272-6913. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday; 8AM-6:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mike McCullough can be reached on ((571) 272-7805. The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are (703)305-7687 for regular communications and (703)308-0552 for After Final communications.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (703)308-1134.
/JOSEPH A DILLON JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights