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 .
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 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 – 19 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted were filed before the first office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the bulk airflow" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be examined as “a bulk airflow”.
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 – 3, 5, 11, 13 – 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cichy (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0245832 A1).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Cichy teaches a separation system (in-line vacuum filter, 100; Fig. 1A) for a vacuum cleaner (Paragraph [0002]; Fig. 1B), the separation system (100) comprising: a chamber (receptacle, 230 and 330) having an airflow inlet (adapter, 210 and 310 with airflow 212 and 312; Fig. 3A); and a filter assembly (filter paddle, 240 and 340; Figs. 2B and 3B) disposed in the chamber (330; Fig. 3B) for filtering airflow from the airflow inlet (Paragraph [0049]); wherein the filter assembly (240 and 340) extends in a length direction (Fig. 3B) along the chamber (330) and has a generally U-shaped cross-sectional shape (Fig. 2B) when viewed along the length direction (Fig. 2B).
Regarding Claim 2, Cichy teaches the separation system (in-line vacuum filter, 100; Fig. 1A) wherein an upstream surface (as shown in Fig. 3A) of the filter assembly (340) provides a generally U-shaped airflow channel (Fig. 3A) for a bulk airflow (312) from the air inlet (310; Fig. 3A).
Regarding Claim 3, Cichy teaches the separation system (in-line vacuum filter, 100; Fig. 1A) wherein a curvature (Figs. 2B and 3A) of the filter assembly (240 and 340) is relatively shallow (Fig. 2B) such that free ends of the U-shaped cross-sectional shape face generally away from one another (Fig. 2B).
Regarding Claim 5, Cichy teaches the separation system (in-line vacuum filter, 100; Fig. 1A) wherein the filter assembly (340) extends in a first direction (Fig. 3B); and wherein the separation system (100) is configured such that, in use: a bulk airflow (312) from the airflow inlet (310) into the chamber (330) is in a second direction (Fig. 3B) which is substantially parallel to the first direction (Fig. 3B); and the bulk airflow (312) from the airflow inlet flows (313) over the filter assembly (340) in a direction orthogonal to the first direction (Fig. 3A).
Regarding Claim 11, Cichy teaches the separation system (in-line vacuum filter, 100; Fig. 1A) comprising an outlet channel (adapter, 220 and 320) into which, in use, a filtered airflow (314) flows after flowing through the filter (340), wherein the outlet channel (320) is positioned to underlie the filter assembly (340).
Regarding Claim 13, Cichy teaches the separation system (in-line vacuum filter, 100; Fig. 1A) wherein: the filter assembly (240 and 340) comprises an upstream face (as shown in Fig. 3A) which is downstream of the airflow inlet (Fig. 3A), and the chamber (330) comprises a longitudinal axis (axis of 330; Fig. 3B); and wherein the upstream face (as shown in Fig. 3A) of the filter assembly (340) is asymmetrically disposed (Fig. 3B) in the chamber (330) with respect to the central longitudinal axis (Figs. 3A and B).
Regarding Claim 14, Cichy teaches the separation system (in-line vacuum filter, 100; Fig. 1A) wherein the upstream face (Fig. 3A) of the filter assembly (340) is spaced from and faces towards the central longitudinal axis of the chamber (330; Fig. 3B).
Regarding Claim 15, Cichy teaches the separation system (in-line vacuum filter, 100; Fig. 1A) wherein the separation system (100) is configured such that, when in use with the vacuum cleaner (Fig. 1B) oriented to clean an upwardly facing generally horizontal surface (Fig. 1B) and a central longitudinal axis of the chamber (axis of 130; Fig. 1A) arranged generally vertically (as shown in Fig, 1B), a bulk direction of airflow (312) at the airflow inlet (310) in the second direction is from a bottom end (Fig. 3A) of the chamber (330) to a top end of the chamber (Fig. 3B).
Regarding Claim 18, Cichy teaches a vacuum cleaner (Fig. 1B) comprising a separation system (110; Fig. 1B) according to claim 1.
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.
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cichy (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0245832 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Cichy teaches the separation system of claim 3, as discussed above.
Cichy further teaches a length of the filter assembly in the first direction as shown in Fig. 3B but does not explicitly teach a length in a first direction of 28 cm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the filter of Cichy to further include a length in a first direction of 28cm, as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cichy (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0245832 A1) in view of Menrik (WO 2007/146444 A1).
Regarding Claim 16, Cichy teaches the separation system of claim 1, as discussed above.
Cichy does not teach a valve for controlling airflow through the airflow inlet into the chamber, wherein the valve covers at least a portion of a base of the chamber, and wherein the airflow inlet is provided in a plane of the valve such that the airflow enters the chamber at the valve.
Menrik, however, teaches a valve (valve, 36) for controlling airflow (arrows as shown in Fig. 4) through the airflow inlet into the chamber (Fig. 4), wherein the valve (36) covers at least a portion of a base of the chamber (13; Fig. 1), and wherein the airflow inlet is provided in a plane of the valve such that the airflow enters the chamber at the valve (Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the filter of Cichy to further include a valve for controlling airflow through the airflow inlet into the chamber, wherein the valve covers at least a portion of a base of the chamber, and wherein the airflow inlet is provided in a plane of the valve such that the airflow enters the chamber at the valve, as taught by Moine, to provide a system that delivers precision and efficiency while protecting equipment and optimizing the system performance.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cichy (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0245832 A1) in view of Moine et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0184731 A1).
Regarding Claim 17, Cichy teaches the separation system of claim 1, as discussed above.
Cichy does not teach a wiping member configured to contact a or the upstream face of the filter to wipe debris from the upstream face of the filter.
Moine teaches a wiping member (flexible wiper member, 321; Paragraph [0051]) configured to contact a or the upstream face of the filter (381) to wipe debris from the upstream face of the filter (381; Paragraph [0051]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the filter of Cichy to further include a wiping member configured to contact a or the upstream face of the filter to wipe debris from the upstream face of the filter, as taught by Moine, to provide a filter where airflow is restored without the need for replacement, thus saving costs.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6, 12 and 19 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Although Cichy (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0245832 A1) teaches a separation system, the reference fails to teach, suggest or make obvious the filter assembly comprises a first filter and a second filter, the second filter being arranged with respect to the first filter such that air flows through and is filtered by the second filter after having flowed through and been filtered by the first filter, the second filter extending in a third direction parallel to the first and the second directions, as required by claim 6.
Claims 7 – 10 are further objected as being dependents of objected claim 6.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Although Cichy (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0245832 A1) teaches a separation system, the reference fails to teach, suggest or make obvious the second filter is positioned to underlie the first filter, and wherein the outlet channel extends in a fourth direction which is parallel with and offset from the first and second directions, as required by claim 12.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Although Cichy (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0245832 A1) teaches a separation system, the reference fails to teach, suggest or make obvious a bin assembly comprising a bin body and a bin interlock member, and a core, wherein the chamber of the separation system is formed by an internal volume of the bin body, and wherein the bin interlock member is configured to inhibit removal of the bin body from the core when a cleaner head is attached to the vacuum cleaner, as required by claim 19.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATINA N HENSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8024. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday; 5:30am to 3:30pm.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-272-4475. 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.
/KATINA N. HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights