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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
102b.
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 Objections
Claims 10 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In regards to Claim 10, “an distal” should read --a distal--.
Further in regards to Claim 10, “an proximate” should read --a proximate--.
In regards to Claim 10, “an distal” should read --a distal--.
Further in regards to Claim 10, “an proximate” should read --a proximate--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-20 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.
In regards to Claim 1, the limitations are unclear. The preamble of Claim 1 is drawn to “[a] head assembly for use with a lint cleaner tube assembly”, but the claim limitations are drawn to both the head assembly, and the lint cleaner tube assembly. Are all limitations drawn to the lint cleaner tube assembly considered intended use (“for use with”)? For the purposes of examination, the invention of Claim 1 is interpreted as being drawn to the combination of a head assembly and a lint cleaner tube assembly.
In regards to Claim 2, the limitations are unclear. The preamble of Claim 1 is drawn to “[a] head assembly for use with a lint cleaner tube assembly”. The preamble of Claim 2 is drawn to “[t]he lint cleaner tube assembly of claim 1”. It is unclear how Claim 2 can only be drawn to the lint cleaner tube assembly. For the purposes of examination, the invention of Claim 2 is interpreted as being drawn to the combination of a head assembly and a lint cleaner tube assembly.
In regards to Claim 3, the limitations are unclear. The preamble of Claim 1 is drawn to “[a] head assembly for use with a lint cleaner tube assembly”. The preamble of Claim 3 is drawn to “[t]he lint cleaner tube assembly of claim 1”. It is unclear how Claim 3 can only be drawn to the lint cleaner tube assembly. For the purposes of examination, the invention of Claim 3 is interpreted as being drawn to the combination of a head assembly and a lint cleaner tube assembly.
In regards to Claim 4, the limitations are unclear. The preamble of Claim 1 is drawn to “[a] head assembly for use with a lint cleaner tube assembly”. The preamble of Claim 4 is drawn to “[t]he lint cleaner tube assembly of claim 1”. It is unclear how Claim 4 can only be drawn to the lint cleaner tube assembly. For the purposes of examination, the invention of Claim 4 is interpreted as being drawn to the combination of a head assembly and a lint cleaner tube assembly.
In regards to Claim 5, the limitations are unclear. The preamble of Claim 1 is drawn to “[a] head assembly for use with a lint cleaner tube assembly”. The preamble of Claim 5 is drawn to “[t]he lint cleaner tube assembly of claim 1”. It is unclear how Claim 5 can only be drawn to the lint cleaner tube assembly. For the purposes of examination, the invention of Claim 5 is interpreted as being drawn to the combination of a head assembly and a lint cleaner tube assembly.
In regards to Claim 6, the limitations are unclear. The preamble of Claim 1 is drawn to “[a] head assembly for use with a lint cleaner tube assembly”. The preamble of Claim 6 is drawn to “[t]he lint cleaner tube assembly of claim 1”. It is unclear how Claim 6 can only be drawn to the lint cleaner tube assembly. For the purposes of examination, the invention of Claim 6 is interpreted as being drawn to the combination of a head assembly and a lint cleaner tube assembly.
In regards to Claim 7, the limitations are unclear. The preamble of Claim 1 is drawn to “[a] head assembly for use with a lint cleaner tube assembly”. The preamble of Claim 7 is drawn to “[t]he lint cleaner tube assembly of claim 1”. It is unclear how Claim 7 can only be drawn to the lint cleaner tube assembly. For the purposes of examination, the invention of Claim 7 is interpreted as being drawn to the combination of a head assembly and a lint cleaner tube assembly.
In regards to Claim 8, the limitations are unclear. The preamble of Claim 1 is drawn to “[a] head assembly for use with a lint cleaner tube assembly”. The preamble of Claim 8 is drawn to “[t]he lint cleaner tube assembly of claim 1”. It is unclear how Claim 8 can only be drawn to the lint cleaner tube assembly. For the purposes of examination, the invention of Claim 8 is interpreted as being drawn to the combination of a head assembly and a lint cleaner tube assembly.
In regards to Claim 9, the limitations are unclear. The preamble of Claim 1 is drawn to “[a] head assembly for use with a lint cleaner tube assembly”. The preamble of Claim 9 is drawn to “[t]he lint cleaner tube assembly of claim 1”. It is unclear how Claim 9 can only be drawn to the lint cleaner tube assembly. For the purposes of examination, the invention of Claim 9 is interpreted as being drawn to the combination of a head assembly and a lint cleaner tube assembly.
In regards to Claim 10, the limitation “improving the serviceability” is unclear. The term “improving” is subjective. How is this measured or determined? What one might see as an improvement, another might see as detrimental. Servicing the element may be quicker, but at what costs? Maybe the parts are more expensive, or harder to come by. One might not see this as improved.
In regards to Claim 16, the phrase “said head assembly” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Further in regards to Claim 16, the phrase “among a head assembly” is unclear. What does this mean? How can something be among one element?
Still further in regards to Claim 16, the phrase “the splined portion of said replacement slotted shaft” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Still further in regards to Claim 16, the phrase “comprising a tube portion with a surface wrap and head assembly each having the slotted shaft with the splined portion, the splined hub, and the keyless bushing assembly” is unclear. The slotted shaft, splined portion, splined hub, and keyless bushing assembly is part of the head assembly, not the surface wrap. The limitation almost reads as if the phrase “each having” does not belong. One of ordinary skill in the art would be unsure of how to interpret the limitation as currently written.
The remaining claims inherit the rejection by dependency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 10, and 16 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2-9, 11-15, and 17-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claims 1, 10, and 16, as well as their respective dependent claims, are not subject to an art rejection because the prior art of record neither teaches nor reasonably suggests the recitations found therein, including the combination of splined hub and keyless bushing as currently claimed. Specifically, the combination of these two elements in a combination head assembly and lint cleaner tube assembly allows servicing which only requires a fit connection on one end, allowing for the method steps as found in Claim 16 to occur.
The closest prior art of record, Jones (20240110312), teaches a lint cleaning roller which does have a cleaner tube assembly, wrap, slotted shaft, and multiple hubs, one of which could be considered splined. Jones, however, does not teach a keyless bushing assembly configured to be mounted on the slotted shaft. At best, if Detail 104 of Jones is considered the shaft, and Detail 108 is the splined portion, the shaft would only mount to one “hub”, flange 103. And this interpretation could not allow for a keyless bushing assembly to be mounted, even if it were present, as it would be outside of the cleaner tube assembly.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See of record.
Specifically, at least Jones (20240110312) Figure 1, Arsenenau (20140069767) Figure 2, Habib et al (20130092776) Figures 3, 4, Zhao et al (CN 2550383) Figure 1, Roessler et al (6523678) Figures 1, 2, Karrer (1731534) Figure 2, and Jenkins (1709021) Figure 1 teach elements similar to those as currently claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shaun R Hurley whose telephone number is (571)272-4986. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 8:00am - 3:00pm.
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, Clinton T Ostrup can be reached at (571) 272-5559. 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.
/SHAUN R HURLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732