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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (claims 1-13) in the reply filed on 01/19/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 14-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in the EPO on 09/07/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the EPO EP23195904.0 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 9 and 13 are objected to because of the following:
Regarding claim 1, the word “an” should apparently be added immediately before “agglomeration chamber” in line 3.
Regarding claim 3, the word “an” should apparently be added immediately before “agglomerator” in line 1.
Regarding claim 9, the phrase “material S during” in line 2 should apparently be replaced with “material during”.
Regarding claim 13, the phrase “material S in” in line 2 should apparently be replaced with “material in”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2011/111342 to Panasonic Corp. (“Panasonic”, and note that attached translation).
Regarding claim 1, Panasonic teaches an agglomeration unit (Fig. 3, translation, abstract) for agglomerating vacuumed material, the agglomeration unit comprising: an agglomeration chamber (ref. 2, translation, page 8, para beginning “As shown in FIG. 3”), and an agglomerator (ref. 18 and 19, translation, page 8, para beginning “As shown in FIG. 3”) for agglomerating the vacuumed material in the agglomeration chamber.
Regarding claim 2, Panasonic discloses an agglomeration unit wherein the agglomerator is a piston, spiral press, screw press or spindle press (translation, page 8, para beginning “As shown in FIG. 3” and “The upper end”).
Regarding claim 3, Panasonic discloses an agglomeration unit wherein the agglomerator has an effective surface in contact with the vacuumed material during agglomeration, a size of the effective surface being less than or equal to 200 cm² (translation, page 12, para beginning “Usually, if the outer diameter”).
Regarding claim 4, Panasonic discloses a drive (Fig. 3, ref. 24 and 27, translation, page 8, para beginning “The upper end” and “The movable shaft”) for driving the agglomerator.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
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 9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over WO 2011/111342 to Panasonic Corp. (“Panasonic”, and note that attached translation).
Regarding claim 9, Panasonic does not explicitly teach the unit being operated in a manner wherein the force which is exerted on the vacuumed material during agglomeration is exerted in a substantially constant manner. However, since Panasonic discloses the claimed structural features, and the Panasonic unit appears to be substantially identical to the presently claimed unit, the it can be reasonably expected that the Panasonic unit is fully capable of being operated in the manner recited.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 can be made when the prior art product seems to be identical except that the prior art is silent as to an inherent characteristic. MPEP 2112(III)(A).
Once a reference teaching a product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of rejection, and the examiner presents evidence or reasoning tending to show inherency, the burden of production shifts to the applicant. MPEP 2112(V).
When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. MPEP 2112.01(I).
Regarding claim 11, Panasonic teaches a suction device comprising the agglomeration unit as recited in claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), but does not explicitly teach the device is designed as a construction-grade vacuum cleaner or as a central disposal station. However, since the Panasonic device includes the claimed structural features, and appears to be substantially identical to the claimed device, it appears to be fully capable being used as a construction-grade vacuum cleaner or as a central disposal station (note Panasonic, Fig. 1, and the present specification at, inter alia, para [0021] and [0027]).
Regarding claim 12, Panasonic discloses at least one separator (Fig. 2, ref. 1 and 16, translation, page 4, para beginning “As shown in FIG. 2”) useful for separating particles from the vacuumed material.
Regarding claim 13, Panasonic discloses a dust collecting container (Fig. 2, ref. 2 and 4, translation, page 4, para beginning “As shown in FIG. 2”) useful for receiving the vacuumed material in addition to the agglomeration chamber.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2011/111342 to Panasonic Corp. (“Panasonic”, and note that attached translation) in view of CN 219277859 to Suzhou Baimin Electronic Material Technology Co. ltd. (“Suzhou”, and note the attached translation).
Regarding claim 5, Panasonic does not explicitly teach the unit wherein the drive is a hydraulic drive or a pneumatic drive. However, hydraulic drives were known in the art as effective for driving a press (see, e.g., Suzhou at, inter alia, translation, page 4, para beginning “When in use”) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Panasonic unit wherein the drive is a hydraulic drive, with a reasonable expectation of success, since they were known as effective for driving a press.
Regarding claim 6, Pansasonic discloses a unit wherein a force is exerted on the vacuumed material during agglomeration (translation, page 4, para beginning “The reason is that” and “Specifically, as a result”), and that sufficient force is needed for sufficient agglomeration (translation, page 4, para beginning “The reason is that” and “Specifically, as a result”), but does not explicitly teach that the unit is capable of being operated in a manner wherein the force being determined by a pressure in a range of 50 to 1000 megapascals. However, since too little force risks insufficient agglomeration, while too much force wastes energy and risks equipment damage and personal injury, the amount of force is a result-effective variable, and the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the force capability of the Panasonic unit through routine experimentation with predictable results.
Regarding claim 7, Pansasonic discloses a unit wherein a force is exerted on the vacuumed material during agglomeration (translation, page 4, para beginning “The reason is that” and “Specifically, as a result”), and that sufficient force is needed for sufficient agglomeration (translation, page 4, para beginning “The reason is that” and “Specifically, as a result”), but does not explicitly teach that the unit is capable of being operated in a manner wherein the force being determined by a pressure in a range of 100 to 750 megapascals. However, since too little force risks insufficient agglomeration, while too much force wastes energy and risks equipment damage and personal injury, the amount of force is a result-effective variable, and the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the force capability of the Panasonic unit through routine experimentation with predictable results.
Regarding claim 8, Pansasonic discloses a unit wherein a force is exerted on the vacuumed material during agglomeration (translation, page 4, para beginning “The reason is that” and “Specifically, as a result”), and that sufficient force is needed for sufficient agglomeration (translation, page 4, para beginning “The reason is that” and “Specifically, as a result”), but does not explicitly teach that the unit is capable of being operated in a manner wherein the force being determined by a pressure in a range of 250 to 500 megapascals. However, since too little force risks insufficient agglomeration, while too much force wastes energy and risks equipment damage and personal injury, the amount of force is a result-effective variable, and the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the force capability of the Panasonic unit through routine experimentation with predictable results.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2011/111342 to Panasonic Corp. (“Panasonic”, and note that attached translation) in view of DE 102010037869 to Vorwerk and Co. Interholding GmbH (“Vorwerk”, and note the attached translation).
Regarding claim 10, Panasonic does not explicitly teach a binder supply for adding a binder to the vacuumed material. However, binders were known in the art as effective for enhancing adhesion of collected material (see, e.g., Vorwerk at, inter alia, translation, page 4, para beginning “It is also provided”, page 7, para beginning “Furthermore, the device”), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the Panasonic unit wherein it includes a binder supply for adding a binder to the vacuumed material, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it was known as effective or enhancing adhesion of collected material.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC GOLIGHTLY whose telephone number is (571)270-3715. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10 am - 7 pm.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571) 272-1344. 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.
/ERIC W GOLIGHTLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714