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 .
Claim Objections
In claim 1, consider --a dust collector disposed on the internal path through which [[the]] drawn air flows [[and]], wherein the dust collector is rotatable to separate the foreign substances from the drawn air by rotating the drawn air-- and --a rotation body disposed further downstream than the dust collector in an airflow direction of the drawn air, to rotate by [[the]] air passing through the dust collector, and to rotate the dust collector by being combined with the dust collector.--
In claim 2, consider --blades arranged along an outer circumference of the rotor to rotate the rotor by the air passing through the dust collector--
-- the dust collector is coupled to the rotor to be rotated by [[the]] rotation of the rotor--
In claim 3, consider --the rotor body comprises a second coupler formed on an outer circumferential surface of the rotor body to be coupled to the first coupler
In claim 4, consider --the first coupler comprises a protruding part formed to protrude from the inner circumferential surface toward [[the]] an inside of the dust collector--
In claim 7, consider --an outer case comprising an intake hole to allow [[the]] air to be drawn into [[the]] an inside of the case; and an inner case to be accommodated in the outer case to rotatably accommodate the dust collector and the rotation body[[.]], the inner case comprising an opening formed to allow [[the]] air drawn into the outer case to flow into the inner case--.
In claim 9, consider -- prevent foreign substances accumulated inside the outer case from being introduced into the opening of the inner case--
In claim 10, consider --a dust collector body to separate the foreign substances from [[the]] air flowing into the inner case-- and --a first guard formed to be spaced outward from the dust collector rotation shaft and protruding downward to prevent the foreign substances from flowing into the dust collector bearing by covering the dust collector rotation shaft from [[the]] outside--.
In claim 12, consider --a second guard formed to be spaced outward from the rotor rotation shaft and protruding upward to prevent the foreign substances from flowing into the rotor bearing by covering the rotor rotation shaft from [[the]] outside--.
In claim 14, consider --the inner case comprises a rotation guide to guide the air drawn into the outer case so that the air drawn into the outer case is passed through the intake hole and rotates in a first direction inside the outer case--
In claim 16, consider --a dust collector disposed on a path of the intake airflow and rotatable to rotate [[the]] drawn air to separate the foreign substances from the drawn air--
--the rotation body including a rotor extending in a direction parallel to [[the]] air passing through the dust collector--
The examiner notes that claim(s) 6 is/are not grouped together with claim(s) 2; claim(s) 12, 13 is/are not grouped together with claim(s) 3, claim(s) 14, 15 is/are not grouped together with claim(s) 7, as required by MPEP 608.01(m), which recites “All dependent claims should be grouped together with the claim or claims to which they refer to the extent practicable”. The claim(s) should not be renumbered, the examiner will renumber the claim(s) should the application be allowed.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ni (WO 2020206990 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Ni discloses A cleaner ([0001]) comprising:
a case having an internal path formed therein (case 6, fig. 7; [0055] see arrows in fig. 7 for path of flow; the case can also include an inner case 1, fig. 7; [0056]);
an intake motor to draw in air containing foreign substances into the case (this embodiment has the same configuration as in example 1, [0052], motor described with negative pressure assembly in [0037] [not shown in figures] that draws gas with dust into dust collection device, and as in [0056], there is an inlet 61, fig. 7 in the case, it is externally exposed as in fig. 6, thus the air [which can have foreign substances] is drawn into the case);
a dust collector disposed on the internal path through which the drawn air flows and rotatable to separate the foreign substances from the drawn air by rotating the drawn air (dust collector 2, fig. 7; [0056] rotates, the dust collector is part of the air path as indicated by the arrows in fig. 7, and filters/separate impurities as in [0055], with reference to [0046] of example 1, the air rotates [spirals] within the dust collector) and
a rotation body disposed further downstream than the dust collector in an airflow direction of the drawn air, to rotate by the air passing through the dust collector, and to rotate the dust collector by being combined with the dust collector (rotation body 31, fig. 7; [0056], it is downstream of the dust collector as indicated by arrows of air flow in fig. 7, and is combined as shown in fig. 7 within the same apparatus).
With respect to claim 5, Ni discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses the rotation body is detachably combined with the dust collector ([0058] describes the flange 32 in figs. 8-9, therefore shows how the rotation body is detachably combined with the dust collector 2, which is shown fully assembled in fig .6; alternatively, the rotation body and dust collector can be detached, including possibly irreversibly with the dust collector 2).
With respect to claim 7, Ni discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the case comprises: an outer case comprising an intake hole to allow the air to be drawn into the inside of the case (the outer case is case 6, fig .7; includes intake hole 61, fig. 7; [0055-0056]); and an inner case to be accommodated in the outer case to rotatably accommodate the dust collector and the rotation body (inner case 1, fig 7, [0056], it is within the outer case 6, as in fig. 7 and contains the rotating dust collector and portions of the flange 32 of the rotating body within, see fig. 7 and structures of the rotation body in figs. 8-9). the inner case comprising an opening formed to allow the air drawn into the outer case to flow into the inner case (air passes from outer case 6 to hood 7 as in [0055], and air also passes from inner case 1 into dust collector 2 as in [0057] and [0060] provides air through intake 61 of the outer case into inner case 1, so there would be some opening [although not explicit, it would be present] formed to allow the air drawn into the outer case to flow into the inner case; see also [0053] where air passes through both the first gas separator and second gas separator, which includes the inner case and outer case respectively, [0053,0058]; additionally, airflow enters at air port 321, fig. 8; [0058], see air flow arrows).
With respect to claim 16, Ni discloses A cleaner ([0001]) comprising:
an intake motor to generate an intake force (this embodiment has the same configuration as in example 1, [0052], motor described with negative pressure assembly in [0037] [not shown in figures] that draws gas with dust into dust collection device, and as in [0056], there is an inlet 61, fig. 7 in the case, it is externally exposed as in fig. 6, thus the air [which can have foreign substances] is drawn into the case);
and an impeller to be driven by the intake motor to generate an intake airflow drawing in air containing foreign substances (as in [0037] there is a vane [impeller] that is rotated);
a dust collector disposed on a path of the intake airflow and rotatable to rotate the drawn air to separate the foreign substances from the drawn air (dust collector 2, fig. 7; [0056] rotates, the dust collector is part of the air path as indicated by the arrows in fig. 7, and filters/separate impurities as in [0055], with reference to [0046] of example 1, the air rotates [spirals] within the dust collector);
a rotation body disposed further downstream than the dust collector in a flow direction of the intake airflow (rotation body 31, fig. 7, [0056]), the rotation body including a rotor extending in a direction parallel to the air passed through the dust collector (the structure of 31, fig. 7 itself is a rotor, parallel to air flow indicated by arrows in fig. 7, there are also other parts, for example air driven impeller 3 itself of the rotation body as in [0056]); and blades to rotate the rotor by the air passing through the dust collector (air driven impeller 3 of the rotation body as in [0056]), to rotate the dust collector by being combined with the dust collector (causes dust collector 2, fig. 7 to rotate as in [0056]), wherein the dust collector is detachably coupled to the rotor (([0058] describes the flange 32 in figs. 8-9, therefore shows how the rotation body is detachably combined with the dust collector 2, which is shown fully assembled in fig .6; alternatively, the rotation body and dust collector can be detached, including possibly irreversibly with the dust collector 2).
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(s) 2 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ni (WO 2020206990 A1) and further in view of Oh (US 20030208879 A1)
With respect to claim 2, Ni discloses the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the rotation body comprises: a rotor to extend in a direction parallel to a direction in which the air passing through the dust collector flows (the structure of 31, fig. 7 itself is a rotor, parallel to air flow indicated by arrows in fig. 7, there are also other parts, for example air driven impeller 3 itself of the rotation body as in [0056]); and blades arranged along an circumference of the rotor to rotate the rotor by the air passed through the dust collector (air driven impeller 3 of the rotation body as in [0056], is along an inner circumference of the rotor, a broader interpretation can be that it is also along the outer circumference of the rotor 31 by being placed next to the outer circumference of said rotor 31), and the dust collector is coupled to the rotor to be rotated by the rotation of the rotor (causes dust collector 2, fig. 7 to rotate as in [0056]), however does not explicitly disclose blades arranged along an outer circumference of the rotor to rotate the rotor. In the first example of Ni, there is an arrangement of blades 3 along an outer circumference of the rotor 31 (see fig. 3, [0042]). As noted in the rejection of claim 1 above, the example 3 that was cited in the rejection is substantially the same as that of example 1 ([0052]).
MPEP 2143 provides that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have substituted a rotor arrangement with the blades along an inner circumference for that with blades along an outer circumference, both taught by Ni, with predictable results.
As for the specifics of how the rotor in the third example includes an annular flange (32, figs. 8-9, [0058]), Oh, in the same field of endeavor, related to vacuums, teaches of blades round a central rotor (blades 512 around rotor 512a, fig. 3; [0034]), and demonstrates that such a rotor can be connected to an annular structure (533, fig. 3, [0038], which is connected with 520, [0035], see figs. 3 and 4 for rotation). Therefore, it would have also been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have substituted a rotor arrangement with the blades along an inner circumference for that with blades along an outer circumference, as evidenced by both Ni and Oh, with predictable results (including how an annular structure can be rotated by a rotor that is narrower than the annual structure).
With respect to claim 6, Ni, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 2 and further teaches the blades comprise: a first blade on the outer circumference of the rotor (Ni, as in fig. 3 provides for a plurality of blades 3 in opposite sides ; [0042]) ; and a second blade on an opposite side of the first blade with respect to the rotor (Ni, as in fig. 3 provides for a plurality of blades 3 in opposite sides ; [0042]), the dust collector comprises a dust collector body having a cylindrical shape (the dust collector 1 at it’s upper end shown in fig. 7 fits the annular structure 32 [which rotates] figs. 8-9, and therefore has an [partially] cylindrical shape at that upper location), and a length from one end of the first blade to one end of the second blade is to be smaller than a diameter of the dust collector body (as shown in fig. 3 of Ni, the blades are smaller, from end to end of opposite blades than the dust collector 2).
Alternatively, regarding a length from one end of the first blade to one end of the second blade is to be smaller than a diameter of the dust collector body, MPEP 2144.04 provides that changes in size/proportion would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, providing that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device, thus it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art”
Therefore, it would have also been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have made in Ni, as modified, a length from one end of the first blade to one end of the second blade is to be smaller than a diameter of the dust collector body, as a change in relative dimensions of the blade and the dust collector. The modification would have been predictable.
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ni (WO 2020206990 A1) and Oh (US 20030208879 A1) and further in view of Takeuchi (US 20090252549 A1)
With respect to claim 3, Ni, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 2 and further teaches wherein the rotor comprises: a rotor body to be inserted into the dust collector (rotor body is the shaft 31, fig. 3 of Ni, [0042] and is fitted into dust collector 2); and a rotor head formed at one end of the rotor body to be outside the dust collector (rotor head is the portion with blades 3 in Ni that protrudes out of the dust collector 2, fig. 3), the blades arranged along an outer circumference of the rotor head (see Ni, fig. 3), however does not explicitly disclose the dust collector comprises a first coupler formed on an inner circumferential surface of the dust collector, and the rotor body comprises a second coupler formed on an outer circumferential surface of the rotor body to be coupled to the first coupling part.
Takeuchi, reasonably pertinent to the problem being solved of providing shaft/rotor couplings with a part to be rotated, teaches of providing on the part attached to a rotor [analogous to the dust collector], a first coupler on an inner circumference (splines 5, fig. 3A, [0037]), with a rotor body comprises a second coupler formed on an outer circumferential surface of the rotor body to be coupled to the first coupling part (2, fig. 2c, [0037]). Takeuchi teaches this splined arrangement reduces stress ([0012])
It would have also been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Ni so that the dust collector comprises a first coupler formed on an inner circumferential surface of the dust collector, and the rotor body comprises a second coupler formed on an outer circumferential surface of the rotor body to be coupled to the first coupling part, using the teachings of a key in slot arrangement taught by Takeuchi, for reduced stress.
With respect to claim 4, Ni, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 3 and further teaches teach wherein the first coupler comprises a protruding part formed to protrude from the inner circumferential surface toward the inside of the dust collector (Takeuchi splines 5, fig. 3A, [0037], wave protruding parts from an inner circumcenter) and the second coupler comprises a groove part into which the protruding part is inserted (Takeuchi, 2, fig. 2c, [0037] contains corresponding splines with grooves to mesh together).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ni (WO 2020206990 A1) and further in view of Dyson (US 5558697 A) and Yi (US 20230210332 A1).
With respect to claim 8, Ni discloses the limitations of claim 7 and further discloses wherein the case further comprises a cover part to cover the opening of the inner case (Ni, cover part 7, fig. 7, [0055], which covers the top of the inner case 1, where the airflow enters at air port 321, fig. 8; [0058], see air flow arrows) , the cover part comprising a plurality of holes to allow the air drawn into the outer case to pass into the inner case (see holes of 7 in fig. 7; [0055]) however does not explicitly disclose the inner case comprises: a bypass hole formed to allow air not passing through the plurality of holes to be introduced into the inner case in response to the air not passing through the plurality of holes; and a bypass door to be rotatable to open or close the bypass hole.
Dyson, in the same field of endeavor, related to vacuums, teaches of wherein the inner case (there is a inner case as an inner cyclone 18, fig. 2 col 5 lines 1-18, with an outer case 16); comprises: a bypass hole (bypass hole as bleed valve 20, fig. 6, specifically covered by disk [a plug door] 34, fig. 6, col 5 lines 25-38) formed to allow air not passing through the plurality of holes to be introduced into the inner case in response to the air not passing through the plurality of holes (if there is an air clog as in col 5 lines 15-30 and 40-55, the door opens due to a lack of pressure). Dyson teaches that this arrangement keeps the cleaner efficient if there is a lack of flow (col 1 lines 45-61).
It would have also been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Ni to include the bypass door of Dyson, to maintain efficiency of the vacuum cleaner.
As for a bypass door to be rotatable to open or close the bypass hole, Yi, in the same field of endeavor, related to vacuum cleaners, provides for an actuated flap type valve (rotatable door 45, fig. 1, and as provided in [0058-0059], there are many types of doors, and can be rotated by air or by motor).
MPEP 2143 provides that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have substituted a plug door (taught by Dyson), with a rotatable door (taught by Yi). The modification would have been predictable.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ni (WO 2020206990 A1) and further in view of Yoshida (EP 2255709 A1)
PNG
media_image1.png
590
680
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ann. fig. 7 (Ni)
With respect to claim 9, Ni discloses the limitations of claim 7 and further discloses wherein the case further comprises a scattering preventor coupled to a lower side of the inner case to prevent foreign substances accumulated inside the outer case from being introduced into the opening (Ni, ann. fig. 7, the structure is analogues to the current scatter preventor and it will prevent anything stuck underneath from entering the opening), and the scattering preventor comprises: a scattering prevention body extending downward from the inner case (the structure pointed to in Ni, ann. fig .7 is the body, and it extends downwards); however does not explicitly disclose a scattering prevention rib extending spirally along a longitudinal direction of the scattering prevention body on an outer circumferential surface of the scattering prevention body and protruding toward an inner circumferential surface of the outer case.
Yoshida, in the same field of endeavor, related to vacuum cleaners, teaches of a scattering prevention rib extending spirally along a longitudinal direction of the scattering prevention body on an outer circumferential surface of the scattering prevention body and protruding toward an inner circumferential surface of the outer case (there is a spiral rib on the outer [cylindrical, since the rib itself spirals round] surface of 123c, fig .6, [0020], the rib extends outwards [toward an inner circumferential surface of the outer case] that is part of a rotating compression portion 123) . Yoshida teaches this arrangement prevents dust from getting stuck, rolling or clogging ([0021]). In addition, the spiral can be rotated to increase capacity of the container when rotated to compact dust ([0039])
It would have also been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Ni to include an scattering prevention rib, as taught by Yoshida, to prevent dust from getting stuck, rolling or clogging, also providing an advantage of increased dust capacity.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ni (WO 2020206990 A1) and further in view of Hyun (US 20170319030 A1) and Oh (US 20030208879 A1).
With respect to claim 14, Ni discloses the limitations of claim 7 and further discloses wherein the rotation body comprises: a rotor to extend in a direction parallel to a direction in which the air passing through the dust collector flows (rotor is the structure of 31, fig. 7 itself is a rotor, parallel to air flow indicated by arrows in fig. 7, there are also other parts, for example air driven impeller 3 itself of the rotation body as in [0056]); and blades inclined to have a negative inclination with respect to a tangential direction of the first direction to rotate the rotor in the first direction by the air passing through the dust collector and arranged along an circumference of the rotor (air driven impeller 3 of the rotation body as in [0056], is along an inner circumference of the rotor [a broader interpretation can be that it is also along the outer circumference of the rotor 31 by being placed next to the outer circumference of said rotor 31, the blades have a negative inclination because the blades are angled [which includes an upward and downward incline] and the tangential direction is simply, a horizontal line relative to fig. 7 perpendicular to an axis of rotation, regardless of direction the rotor rotates in, and in any case the air flow and rotor are in the same direction, [0046,0058], as addressed in the rejection of claim 1, it was addressed that the examples 1 and 3 are the same ) however does not explicitly disclose the inner case comprises a rotation guide to guide the air drawn into the outer case so that the air drawn into the outer case passed through the intake hole rotates in a first direction inside the outer case, and blades arranged along an outer circumference of the rotor.
Huyn, in the same field of endeavor, related to vacuums teaches the inner case comprises a rotation guide (rotation guide 180, fig. 2, [0100-0103], to cause spiral rotation) to guide the air drawn into the outer case so that the air drawn into the outer case passed through the intake hole rotates in a first direction inside the outer case (the air introduced into the intake hole, which in Ni leads to the inside of outer case would be caused to rotate in a spiral [first direction] inside the outer case by the vanes of Hyun). Hyun teaches that this arrangement prevents backwards flow that reduces performance ([0096-0097]).
It would have also been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Ni to include a rotation guide as taught by Hyun, for reducing performance impairing backwards flows.
As for blades arranged along an outer circumference of the rotor, in the first example of Ni, there is an arrangement of blades 3 along an outer circumference of the rotor 31 (see fig. 3, [0042]). As noted in the rejection of claim 1 above, example 3 that was cited in the rejection is substantially the same as that of example 1 ([0052]).
MPEP 2143 provides that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have substituted a rotor arrangement with the blades along an inner circumference for that with blades along an outer circumference, both taught by Ni, with predictable results.
As for the specifics of how the rotor in the third example includes an annular flange (32, figs. 8-9, [0058]), Oh, in the same field of endeavor, related to vacuums, teaches of blades round a central rotor (blades 512 around rotor 512a, fig. 3; [0034]), and demonstrates that such a rotor can be connected to an annular structure (533, fig. 3, [0038], which is connected with 520, [0035], see figs. 3 and 4 for rotation). Therefore, it would have also been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have substituted a rotor arrangement with the blades along an inner circumference for that with blades along an outer circumference, as evidenced by both Ni and Oh, with predictable results (including how an annular structure can be rotated by a rotor that is narrower than the annual structure).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ni (WO 2020206990 A1), Hyun (US 20170319030 A1) and Oh (US 20030208879 A1), and further in view of Dai (CN 114831534 A).
With respect to claim 15, Ni, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 14 and further teaches the dust collector comprises: a dust collector body combined with the rotation body to rotate in the first direction (Ni, the dust collector body is the dust collector 2, fig. 7; itself [0056], which rotated with the rotation body [in the same direction] as addressed in rejection of claim 1 above), however does not explicitly teach a dust collection rib protruding from an outer circumference of the dust collector body in a radial direction of the dust collector body and formed to be inclined toward a tangential direction in a direction opposite to the first direction.
Dai, in the same field of endeavor, relating to vacuums, teaches of a dust collector body with a dust collection rib protruding from an outer circumference of the dust collector body in a radial direction of the dust collector body (dust collector rib 76, fig.8, [0053], “The filter structure 7 further comprises at least one guiding rib 76 arranged outside the filter screen 74, the guiding rib 76 protrudes out of the outer surface formed by the filter screen 74, and the guiding rib 76 extends along the circumferential direction and the length direction of the filter structure 7. The guide ribs 76 prevent hairs or the like from abutting the filter screen 74 and guide the hairs to move downwards so that the hairs are detached from the filter structure 7”) and formed to be inclined toward a tangential direction in a direction opposite to the first direction (dust collector 7 of Dai rotates as in [0053], and because the direction of rotation is vertical, relative to the figure, as addressed in rejection of claim 14 over Ni, the angled ribs are inclined relative/toward a tangential direction which is horizontal [toward depends on perspective, as it can be angled rightward and downward toward an arbitrary tangential direction line to the right, lower than the ribs, or upward and leftward to a tangential line above the rib angled upward and facing to the left, the elevation of the tangential line is arbitrary and can be met regardless of whether the arrangement rotates clockwise or counterclockwise, “Meanwhile, because the rotating direction of the filtering structure 7 is the same as that of the cyclone chamber 12, the probability of hair winding can be effectively reduced, because if the rotating direction of the filtering structure 7 is the same as that of the dust, the speed difference between the filtering structure 7 and the dust can be effectively reduced, and simultaneously, the hair can be directly thrown to the dust throwing port 14 due to the centrifugal force of the filtering structure 7”). Dai teaches that this “prevent hairs or the like from abutting the filter screen 74 and guide the hairs to move downwards so that the hairs are detached from the filter structure 7” ([0053]).
It would have also been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Ni to include a dust collection rib as taught by Dai, for reducing hair attachment.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-13 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:
Claims 10 and 12 require, amongst other limitations, a guard to prevent debris from entering a bearing. While Ni provides for a bearing ([0044,0057]), there is no guard disclosed by Ni. The prior art, for example in Li (US 20140143978 A1), provides for structures, including blocking ribs that prevent hair from entering a bearing. However, prior art primarily recognizes that this is an issue with agitators, and the like, and there is no motivation to apply it to either the dust collector or the rotor. The examiner recognizes that while other structure can be deemed to cover the rotor or dust collector, and in a very broad (and potentially not reasonable, in light of the disclosure) interpretation, can be deemed a “guard”, it’s effectiveness in actually preventing debris from entering is questionable and would not necessarily serve the claimed function. Furthermore, guards applied to agitator bearings may not result in a predictable combination when applied elsewhere in an apparatus, given the difference in structure (with the understanding that bodily incorporation is not necessary, predictability to a POSITA is required). Therefore claims 10 and 12 constitute allowable subject matter when read in their entirety, including all limitations of the claim. Claims 11 and 13 are also allowable subject matter because of dependency on claims 10 and 12.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven Huang whose telephone number is (571)272-6750. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 6:30 am to 2:30 pm, Friday 6:30 am to 11:00 am (Eastern Time).
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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/Steven Huang/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights