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 .
Priority
The applicant’s claim to priority of GB2209564.0 on 6/29/2022 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The applicant filed an IDS on 12/13/24. Each has been annotated and considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "100" and "110" have both been used to designate two different valves. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-16 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. Regarding claim 1 (and similarly 14), the term “substantially constant” lacks written description. According to at least [0009] of the Applicant’s Specification, it can be argued that the cross-sectional area of the outlet chamber is not substantially constant since the ratio of the cross-sectional areas of the opening to the outlet may be between 0.9 and 1.1. Although this may be closer to being a constant cross-sectional area compared to prior inventions, it is not constant and thus lacks written description.
Regarding claim 10, the Applicant claims wherein the filter assembly is substantially v-shaped or u-shaped in cross-section. However, the filter assembly 120 is cylindrical. According to the specification and drawings, it appears that mesh or screen 122 (See at least Figs. 4a and 4b) appears to be u-shaped. Therefore, this claim lacks written description.
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 1-16 are 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.
Regarding claim 1 (and similarly 14), the term “substantially constant” is unclear. The Applicant is claiming an outlet chamber that has a cross-sectional area that is substantially constant along the length of the filter assembly as the invention (See at least: [0005] via “This would be achieved by ensuring that the cross-sectional area of the outlet chamber gradually decreases in a direction from the outlet to the opening. The cross-sectional area of the outlet chamber would therefore be greatest at the end adjacent the outlet, and smallest at the end adjacent the opening. Having balanced suction along the length of the filter assembly would ensure that dirt collects more evenly on the filter assembly. However, the net result of this is that the dirt collection chamber fills with dirt in a less efficient way.”). However, the modifier “substantially” makes it unclear if the cross-sectional area is indeed constant or can have the slightest of tapers; this would essentially read on the prior art where the cross-sectional area of the outlet chamber gradually decreases. Therefore, the claim this limitation renders the claims unclear.
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.
(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.
Claims 1-2, 7 and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cho et al. (US 20190167058 hereinafter Cho).
Regarding claim 1, Cho teaches a dirt separator for a vacuum cleaner (See at least: Fig. 1 item 110 “dust collector”), comprising:
a dirt separation chamber extending along a longitudinal axis from an opening to an outlet (See at least: Fig. 4 item 110a “dust collecting chamber”),
a filter assembly extending parallel to the longitudinal axis and dividing the dirt separation chamber into a dirt collection chamber upstream of the filter assembly (See at least: Fig. 4 item 113 “filtering device”), and
an outlet chamber downstream of the filter assembly, wherein the outlet chamber has a cross-sectional area that is substantially constant along a length of the filter assembly (See at least: Fig. 4 item 110b “case passage”).
Regarding claim 2, Cho teaches wherein the dirt collection chamber has a cross-sectional area that is substantially constant along the length of the filter assembly (See at least: Fig. 4 item 113 “filtering device”).
Regarding claim 7, Cho teaches wherein the dirt separation chamber is substantially cylindrical (See at least: Fig. 4 110a “dust collecting chamber”).
Regarding claim 10, Cho teaches wherein the filter assembly is substantially v-shaped or u-shaped in cross-section (See at least: Fig. 4 item 113 “filtering device”).
Regarding claim 11, Cho teaches a valve positioned at the opening and movable between a closed position, in which airflow is prevented from entering the dirt collection chamber via the opening, a first open position, and a second open position, in which airflow is permitted to enter the dirt collection chamber via the opening,
wherein the valve is moveable to the first open position in response to suction within the dirt separation chamber,
wherein the valve is moveable to the closed position in response to removal of the suction within the dirt separation chamber, and
wherein the valve is movable in response to a user input from the closed position to the second open position to evacuate dirt collected in the dirt collection chamber (See at least: Fig. 4 item 114 “opening/closing member”).
Regarding claim 12, Cho teaches wherein the dirt collection chamber is located on one side of the dirt separator, and the outlet chamber is located on an opposite side of the dirt separator (See at least: Fig. 4 item 113 “filtering device” and 110b “case passage”).
Regarding claim 13, Cho teaches wherein the dirt separation chamber is defined by an outer wall, wherein the dirt collection chamber extends between an upstream surface of the filter assembly and a first side of the outer wall, and wherein the outlet chamber extends between a downstream side of the filter assembly and a second, opposite side of the outer wall (See at least: Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 14, Cho teaches a vacuum cleaner comprising: a main body comprising the dirt separator according to claim 1 and a suction generator for generating an airflow, the suction generator positioned downstream of the dirt separator, wherein a rotational axis of the suction generator is co-axial with the longitudinal axis (Refer at least to claim 1 for reasoning and rationale.; See also Fig. 3 item 26 “fan motor unit”).
Regarding claim 15, Cho teaches wherein the main body has a substantially constant cross-section along the longitudinal axis (See at least: Figs. 1-3)
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3-6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho.
Regarding claim 3, Cho fails to teach the following limitation but without any unexpected results, it would have been a matter of design choice to teach wherein a ratio of the cross-sectional areas of the dirt collection chamber to the outlet chamber is between 0.9 and 1.1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Cho to teach wherein a ratio of the cross-sectional areas of the dirt collection chamber to the outlet chamber is between 0.9 and 1.1 as a matter of design choice.
Regarding claim 4, Cho fails to teach the following limitation but without any unexpected results, it would have been a matter of design choice to teach wherein a ratio of the cross-sectional areas of the opening to the outlet is between 0.9 and 1.1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Cho to teach wherein a ratio of the cross-sectional areas of the opening to the outlet is between 0.9 and 1.1 as a matter of design choice.
Regarding claim 5, Cho fails to teach the following limitation but without any unexpected results, it would have been a matter of design choice to teach a ratio of a length of the dirt separation chamber to a width of the dirt separation chamber is at least 5.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Cho to teach a ratio of a length of the dirt separation chamber to a width of the dirt separation chamber is at least 5 as a matter of design choice.
Regarding claim 6, Cho fails to teach the following limitation but without any unexpected results, it would have been a matter of design choice to teach wherein the dirt separation chamber has a length no less than 150 mm, and a width no greater than 60 mm.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Cho to teach wherein the dirt separation chamber has a length no less than 150 mm, and a width no greater than 60 mm as a matter of design choice.
Regarding claim 16, Cho fails to teach the following limitation but without any unexpected results, it would have been a matter of design choice to teach wherein the main body has an outer diameter no greater than 60 mm.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Cho to teach wherein the main body has an outer diameter no greater than 60 mm as a matter of design choice.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Harry Oh whose telephone number is (571)270-5912. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, 9:00-3:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Lin can be reached on (571) 270-3976. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HARRY Y OH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights