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 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.
Claim 2 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.
Specifically, claim 2 recites “…channels extend substantially parallel to each other and are substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis…”. Substantially, with regards to how parallel the channels are to each other and the longitudinal axis, makes it so that the metes and bounds of the claim limitation are indefinite, as it is unclear how close to parallel the channels are.
Additionally, claim 2 recites “the longitudinal axis of the conduit”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Specifically, claims 1 and 2 never recite “a longitudinal axis of the conduit”.
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.
Claims 1-4, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rademacher (DE 102020216156).
Regarding claim 1, Rademacher discloses a vacuum cleaner for cleaning a surface (vacuum cleaner 100, Fig 1 shown below), wherein the vacuum cleaner comprises:
a suction mouth for bearing against the surface (defined as inlet 245 which would be capable of bearing against the surface [0027] Fig 2 shown below);
a chamber for receiving particulate material entering the vacuum cleaner through the suction mouth (chamber defined as dirt separator 135 [0021][0022]);
a suction device for providing an air flow into the suction mouth (suction device defined as blower 130 [0021][0022] Fig 1); and
a conduit connecting the suction mouth to the chamber (conduit defined as housing 205 and connection 215 [0023] Fig 2),
wherein the conduit comprises an adsorbent in the form of a honeycomb having a plurality of channels that are separated from each other by channel walls, and wherein the honeycomb adsorbent comprises activated carbon (adsorbent defined as ozone barrier 240 which can be arranged in a honeycomb shape which would provide it with a plurality of channels separated from each other by channel walls, the ozone barrier comprises activated carbon [0029]).
PNG
media_image1.png
589
475
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
547
509
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Rademacher discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the plurality of channels extend substantially parallel to each other and are substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis of the conduit (as shown in Fig 2 the honeycomb adsorbent channels 240 extend substantially parallel to each other and are substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis of the conduit, defined as the axis of 205 that is substantially parallel to the channels).
Regarding claim 3, Rademacher discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the honeycomb adsorbent has a shape that corresponds to an inner volume of the conduit (as shown in Fig 2, the adsorbent 240 has a shape corresponding to an inner volume of the conduit defined as the volume of the region of the conduit 205 that 240 resides in).
Regarding claim 4, Rademacher discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the honeycomb is a flow-through honeycomb ([0029] explains that air flows through 240 and therefore the honeycomb is a flow-through honeycomb).
Regarding claim 9, Rademacher discloses use of an adsorbent in the form of a honeycomb in a conduit of a vacuum cleaner (adsorbent 240 in the form of a honeycomb is used in a conduit, defined as housing 205 and connection 215 [0023], of vacuum cleaner 100 [0029]),
wherein the conduit connects a suction mouth to a chamber for receiving particulate material entering the vacuum cleaner through the suction mouth (connection 215 and housing 205 connect a suction mouth 245 to a chamber 135 for receiving particulate material [0021][0022] Figs 1-2 above),
wherein the honeycomb adsorbent has a plurality of channels that are separated from each other by channel walls (as shown in Fig 2 above, 240 has a plurality of channels separated by channel walls), and
wherein the honeycomb adsorbent comprises activated carbon ([0029] explains that the adsorbent comprises activated carbon).
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rademacher (DE 102020216156) in view of Cutler (US 20040118747).
Regarding claim 5, Rademacher discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above. However, Rademacher fails to disclose the honeycomb has a cell density in a range of between 10 cells per square inch and 650 cells per square inch.
Cutler is also concerned with honeycomb adsorbents and teaches honeycomb cell densities can range from 50 to 3000 channels per square inch (the cell densities can range in accordance with the amount of adsorbent material required and the backpressure level that can be tolerated for a particular application [0029]).
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 range of cell density of Rademacher’s adsorbent to be that of Cutler’s density range in accordance with the amount of adsorbent material required for a particular application (Cutler [0029]). Further, the claimed range of 10-650 cells per square inch for the cell density would have been obvious over the range disclosed in Cutler because where the claimed range overlap the range disclosed by Cutler, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 and In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rademacher (DE 102020216156) in view of Felber (US 20150328962).
Regarding claim 6, Rademacher discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above. However, Rademacher fails to disclose the honeycomb adsorbent is an extruded article.
Felber is also concerned with honeycomb adsorbents and teaches a honeycomb adsorbent is an extruded article (it is explained that DE10104882B4 discloses a honeycomb structure that is manufactured by extrusion from a mixture of activated carbon [0008]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to manufacture the honeycomb adsorbent of Rademacher via extrusion as taught in Felber as extrusion is a well known manufacturing process with benefits depending on the application.
Additionally, in accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e component X, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. extrusion.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rademacher (DE 102020216156) in view of Schultink (WO 2005082219).
Regarding claim 7, Rademacher discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above. However, Rademacher fails to disclose the activated carbon is derived from a carbon precursor selected from the group consisting of wood, wood dust, wood flour, cotton linters, peat, coal, lignite, petroleum pitch, petroleum coke, coal tar pitch, carbohydrates, coconut shell, fruit pits, fruit stones, nut shells, nut pits, sawdust, palm, vegetables, synthetic polymer, natural polymer, cellulosic material, lignocellulosic material, and combinations thereof.
Schultink is also concerned with adsorbents, particularly for odor absorption, and teaches the activated carbon is derived from a carbon precursor selected from the group consisting of wood, wood dust, wood flour, cotton linters, peat, coal, lignite, petroleum pitch, petroleum coke, coal tar pitch, carbohydrates, coconut shell, fruit pits, fruit stones, nut shells, nut pits, sawdust, palm, vegetables, synthetic polymer, natural polymer, cellulosic material, lignocellulosic material, and combinations thereof (pg 2 [3] explains that the material of the adsorbent’s activated carbon can be based on wood or coconut shell).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to derive the activated carbon from sources such as wood or coconut shell as taught by Schultink in the apparatus of Rademacher as a matter of design choice depending on the application of the device or the method of manufacture.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rademacher (DE 102020216156) in view of Magdelain (US 4650505).
Regarding claim 8, Rademacher discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above. However, Rademacher fails to disclose a particulate filter arranged before the honeycomb adsorbent in terms of air flow.
Magdelain is also concerned with vacuum cleaners using adsorbent filters and teaches a particulate filter arranged before the adsorbent in terms of air flow (fluid flow enters housing inlet 71 and through first filter element 83 defined as particulate filter and then through the activated carbon filter 66, defined as the adsorbent, col 9 lines 49-64 Fig 3 shown below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the particulate filter arranged before the adsorbent as taught by Magdelain to the apparatus of Rademacher in order to provide it with the means to remove the macro and micro particles of the fluid drawn through the apparatus (Magdelain col 9 lines 49-64).
PNG
media_image3.png
695
465
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN M LARSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2765. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at 571-272-8548. 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.
/J.M.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
