DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention(s) in the reply filed on 5/27/26 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-4 & 11-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
They are two duplicate pairs.
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claims 3-4 be found allowable, claims 11-12 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bahr Geb (DE 26 25 701).
Bahr Geb (DE 26 25 701) disclose(s):
bulk material, 4;
conveyor, & therefore a method of conveyance, figure(s) 1;
retention collection region, the floor;
a plurality of vacuum generators, 19;
hose 9;
material collector 10;
filter 13;
sound attenuation assembly 21 comprising a chamber 22;
exhaust portion, flowing upward through 12;
manifold 11.
With regard to claim(s) 10, the applicant is to recognize that applicant’s claim language does not provide an order of steps.
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 & 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bahr Geb (DE 26 25 701).
With regard to 200 feet, as the applicant has failed to show criticality or unexpected results, this distance is/are taken as a matter of design choice.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Bahr Geb (DE 26 25 701) to operable vacuum pressure at least 200 feet in order to accommodate practical consideration.
With regard to claim(s) 2, the applicant is to recognize that applicant’s claim language does not provide an order of steps.
Claim(s) 5 & 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bahr Geb (DE 26 25 701) as applied to claims 1-4 & 11-12 above, and further in view of Yoo (2015/0305582).
Bahr Geb (DE 26 25 701) is/are silent on water removal. Yoo (2015/0305582) teach(es) water removal in a hose fed vacuum conveyor.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Bahr Geb (DE 26 25 701) to provide water removal in order to increase efficiency as taught by Yoo (2015/0305582).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
DeMarco (2007/0234906) disclose(s) a vacuum generator having a sound attenuation assembly comprising, inter alia, dampening and passive components.
Doucette et al. (11,179,754) & Smith (7,203,994) disclose(s) a vacuum generator employing a single venturi.
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