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 – 10 and 13 – 18 are pending. Claims 11 – 12 and 19 – 50 are cancelled.
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 6 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.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purpose of examination, the limitation following “such as” is optional.
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 – 2, 5 – 7, 10, 13 – 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sjoberg (WO 2021/1251871 A1) as cited by Applicant.
PNG
media_image1.png
528
495
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Sjoberg teaches a pre-filter (pre-filter, 125; Fig. 1B) for a heavy-duty dust extractor (dust extractor, 100; Fig. 1A), the pre-filter (125) comprising a filter aperture (Annotated Fig. 1B) and a filter side wall (Annotated Fig. 1B), wherein the side wall (Annotated Fig. 1B) is arranged to permit a flow of air to pass the side wall and to prevent at least some particulate matter from passing the side wall (Page 6, lines 11 – 25), wherein the filter side wall (Annotated Fig. 1B) extends away from the filter aperture (Annotated Fig. 1B) and tapers inwards towards a center axis (Fig. 1B) of the filter (125) to define a filter interior volume (Fig. 1B), wherein the pre-filter (125) is arranged to hold a separating wall in position in the filter interior volume to divide the filter interior volume in at least two parts (the pre-filter, 125 is “arranged to hold a separating wall in position in the filter interior volume to divide the filter interior volume in at least two parts” in that it has a lip portion that can hold a separating wall in position in the filter interior volume to divide the volume in at least two parts. It is further noted that the limitation is not positively claimed and therefore with the structural lip portion, Sjoberg is capable of holding a separating wall).
Regarding Claim 2, Sjoberg teaches the pre-filter (pre-filter, 125; Fig. 1B) wherein the filter side wall (Annotated Fig. 1B) has any of a conical, a frustoconical, a pyramidal, or a frusto-pyramidal shape (Fig. 1B).
Regarding Claim 5, Sjoberg teaches the pre-filter (pre-filter, 125; Fig. 1B) according to claim 1. Regarding the limitation “wherein the separating wall is fixedly attached in the filter interior volume”, the separating wall has not been positively claimed.
Regarding Claim 6, Sjoberg teaches the pre-filter (pre-filter, 125; Fig. 1B) wherein the pre-filter (125) comprises a separating wall holding arrangement (lip), such as a groove, arranged to receive and to releasably hold the separating wall in position in the filter interior volume (Fig. 1B – as noted in claim 1, the separation wall has not been positively claimed thus the lip of Sjoberg is capable of holding a separating wall).
Regarding Claim 7, Sjoberg teaches the pre-filter (pre-filter, 125; Fig. 1B) wherein the filter aperture (Annotated Fig. 1B) has a disc shape (Fig. 1B).
Regarding the limitation “where the separating wall is planar to divide the filter interior volume and the filter aperture in a first and a second half-disc shaped part”, the separating wall has not been positively claimed.
Regarding Claim 10, Sjoberg teaches the pre-filter (pre-filter, 125; Fig. 1B) according to claim 1, as discussed above.
Regarding the limitation “wherein the separating wall comprises a re-enforcement structure configured to resist deformation of the separating wall, wherein the separating wall re-enforcement structure comprises ribs and/or a honey-comb structure”, the separating wall has not been positively claimed.
Regarding Claim 13, Sjoberg teaches the pre-filter (pre-filter, 125; Fig. 1B) comprising a rotation guide member (radially protruding member, 1320; Fig. 13A) arranged to guide an axial rotation of the pre-filter (125) when inserted in a dust extractor (100; Page 24, line 29 – Page 25, line 11).
Regarding Claim 14, Sjoberg teaches the pre-filter (pre-filter, 125; Fig. 1B) a dust extractor (100) comprising the pre-filter (125; Fig. 1B) according to claim 1.
Regarding Claim 18, Sjoberg teaches the pre-filter (pre-filter, 125; Fig. 1B) comprising a hatch mechanism (hatch, 1350) arranged between a pre-separator (1300) of the dust extractor (100) and a dust container (dust container, 220) of the dust extractor (100), wherein the hatch mechanism (hatch, 1350) is at least partly formed in a resilient material (Page 25, line 29 – Page 26, line 11).
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 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sjoberg (WO 2021/1251871 A1) as cited by Applicant in view of Moine et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0184731 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
528
495
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Sjoberg teaches a pre-filter (pre-filter, 125; Fig. 1B) for a heavy-duty dust extractor (dust extractor, 100; Fig. 1A), the pre-filter (125) comprising a filter aperture (Annotated Fig. 1B) and a filter side wall (Annotated Fig. 1B), wherein the side wall (Annotated Fig. 1B) is arranged to permit a flow of air to pass the side wall and to prevent at least some particulate matter from passing the side wall (Page 6, lines 11 – 25), wherein the filter side wall (Annotated Fig. 1B) extends away from the filter aperture (Annotated Fig. 1B) and tapers inwards towards a center axis (Fig. 1B) of the filter (125) to define a filter interior volume (Fig. 1B).
Sjoberg does not explicitly teach a separation wall in position in the filter interior volume to divide the filter interior volume in at least two parts (Although not positively claimed, examiner is providing art that would read on the claimed limitations).
Moine, however, teaches a separation wall (partition wall, 310) in position in the filter interior volume (350) to divide the filter interior volume in at least two parts (316 and 318).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pre-filter of Sjoberg to further include a separation wall in position in the filter interior volume to divide the filter interior volume in at least two parts, as taught by Moine, to improve separation efficiency.
Claims 3, 8 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sjoberg (WO 2021/1251871 A1) as cited by Applicant.
Regarding Claim 3, Sjoberg teaches the pre-filter according to claim 2, as discussed above.
Sjoberg explicitly teaches an angle as shown in Fig. 1B but fails to explicitly teach wherein the filter side wall forms an angle with respect to a central axis of the pre-filter between 10-30 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pre-filter of Sjoberg to explicitly teach the filter side wall forms an angle with respect to a central axis of the pre-filter between 10-30 degrees, as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size/angle of a component. A change in size/angle is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 8, Sjoberg teaches the pre-filter according to claim 1, as discussed above.
Sjoberg explicitly teaches a height of the filter as shown in Fig. 1B but fails to explicitly teach the height measured along the center axis is between 300-400mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pre-filter of Sjoberg to explicitly teach the height measured along the center axis is between 300-400mm, as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size/height of a component. A change in size/height is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 9, Sjoberg teaches the pre-filter according to claim 1, as discussed above.
Sjoberg explicitly teaches a thickness of the filter side wall (Fig. 1B) but fails to explicitly teach
a thickness of the filter side wall is between 20-40mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pre-filter of Sjoberg to explicitly teach a thickness of the filter side wall is between 20-40mm, as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size/height of a component. A change in size/height is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Claim 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sjoberg (WO 2021/1251871 A1) as cited by Applicant in view of Herrett (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0078873 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Sjoberg teaches the pre-filter according to claim 1, as discussed above.
Sjoberg does not teach wherein a first resilient seal extends around a rim of the filter aperture.
Herrett, however, teaches a filter, 21 wherein first resilient seal (seal, 26) extends around a rim of the filter aperture (Paragraph [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pre-filter of Sjoberg to further include a first resilient seal extends around a rim of the filter aperture, as taught by Herrett, to provide a dust extractor where the filter is able to be retained in lace, thus avoiding damage to the extractor.
Regarding the limitation “a second resilient seal is formed on an edge of the separating wall dividing the filter aperture in at least two parts”, this limitation is dependent on Claim 1 and the separating wall of claim 1 has not been positively claimed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15 – 17 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 Sjoberg teaches the dust extractor further comprising a hatch mechanism, the reference fails to teach, suggest or make obvious the hatch mechanism comprising an aperture having a perimeter, and at least three elongated obturator elements pivotably attached along the perimeter at respective hinge ends, each obturator element comprising a distal end arranged opposite to the hinge end along the extension direction of the each obturator element, wherein adjacent obturator elements arranged along the perimeter are connected by foldable joining members arranged to guide the distal ends to a common intersection point distanced from a plane of the aperture, whereby the obturator elements are arranged to fold about the respective hinge ends to a position of mutual support to close the hatch mechanism, as require by claim 15; or wherein each part is associated with a respective valve arrangement arranged to connect the part of the filter interior volume to an ambient pressure side of the valve arrangement upon triggering of the valve arrangement as required by claim 16.
Claim 17 is further object to as a dependent of claim 16.
Conclusion
Art made of record, however, not relied upon for the current rejection is as follows: U. S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0260994 A1 to Grider, et al. teaches a portable industrial air filtration device employing an annular dual filter assembly to capture and remove impurities from the air surrounding the air filtration device, enabling the air filtration device to quickly and efficiently improve the quality and safety of the air. The air filtration device includes a two-piece housing including a lower housing component and a locking cover removably attachable to the lower housing component. The dual filter assembly is mounted within the housing between the locking cover and the lower housing component, and includes a removable self-supporting outer pre-filter surrounding a separately removable inner HEPA filter. The pre-filter initially filters the surrounding air by capturing relatively large or coarse impurities, and the HEPA filter further filters the air pulled through the pre-filter by capturing relatively small or fine impurities.
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
