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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“Main unit” in claims 1, 14, and 18.
“Cyclone unit” in claims 1, 8, and 10.
“Filter unit” in claims 1 and 18-19.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 8-15, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Naoto (WO2019065085), supplied by Applicant in IDS filed 11/1/2022 and a new PDF translation provided by examiner in this action.
Regarding claim 1, Naoto discloses a cleaner, comprising: a main unit (0014, where main body corresponds to main unit) including a main housing (Fig. 2 element 2, 0014) that includes a suction port (see annotated Fig. 2 below); an annular rib (Fig. 2 element 7, 0017, where the "The fan guide 7 is a wall surface having a through holed formed for sucking air" means that the rib is an annular rib) that surrounds the suction port (see annotated Fig. 2 below), a fan (Fig. 2 element 8) in the main housing (Fig. 2), and a motor (Fig. 2 element 9) in the main housing (Fig. 2) that is configured to rotate the fan (0016); a cyclone unit (Fig. 3 elements 21, 41, and 15) including a cyclone dust collector (Fig. 2 elements 41 and 21, 0018) having an outlet (see annotated Fig. 2 below), and a cylinder (Fig. 3 element 53, 0032) located rearward from the outlet of the cyclone dust collector (Fig. 2), the cylinder having an opening larger than the outlet of the cyclone dust collector (see annotated Fig. 2' below); and a filter unit (Fig. 2 elements 55 and 56) including a filter (Figs. 2 and 3 element 55, excluding element 55a; 0027) frontward of the suction port (see annotated Fig. 2 below) and covering the opening (see annotated Fig. 2’ below), and a filter holder (Fig. 2 element 56 and Fig. 3 element 55a) that holds the filter (Fig. 2, 0017 and 0027), wherein the filter has a front face and a rear face (see annotated Fig. 2' below), the front face of the filter faces toward the outlet of the cyclone dust collector (see annotated Figs. 2 and 2' below), the filter holder includes a ring (Fig. 2 element 56, where the annular shape corresponds to a “ring”), and the ring includes a larger-diameter portion that surrounds the filter outside of an outer diameter of the filter and is inside the cylinder (see annotated Fig. 2'' below, where the larger-diameter portion surrounds at least the portion of the filter located between the larger-diameter portion), and a smaller-diameter portion that is cylindrical and surrounds the annular rib (see annotated Fig. 2'' below, where the smaller-diameter portion is cylindrical (i.e. has a generally cylindrical shape) and surrounds at least the portion of the annular rib located between the smaller-diameter portion) and includes an annular seal that seals between the smaller-diameter portion and the annular rib (see annotated Fig. 2’’’ below, where the annular seal contacting the annular rib means that the annular seal is capable of providing a seal between the smaller-diameter portion and the annular rib).
PNG
media_image1.png
534
744
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
734
847
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
988
667
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
1118
388
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Naoto discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses air flowing into an internal space of the cylinder through the outlet of the cyclone dust collector flows through the filter from the front face of the filter (Fig. 2 and see annotated Fig. 2’ above, where the empty space shown between the two sides of the cylinder (53) corresponds to an internal space of the cylinder).
Regarding claim 5, Naoto discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the filter has a center aligning with the center of the opening (see annotated Fig. 2’ above).
Regarding claim 8, Naoto discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the cyclone unit includes a connecting pipe (Fig. 2 element 65) frontward of the cylinder (Fig. 2), and air flowing out through an outlet (Fig. 2 element 15b) of the connecting pipe flows into the cyclone dust collector (Fig. 2, 0015).
Regarding claim 9, Naoto discloses the limitations of claim 8, as described above, and further discloses the connecting pipe and the cyclone dust collector are parallel to each other (Fig. 2), and the opening overlaps with the outlet of the connecting pipe and with the outlet of the cyclone dust collector (see annotated Fig. 2 above).
Regarding claim 10, Naoto discloses the limitations of claim 8, as described above, and further discloses the cyclone unit includes a cyclone housing (Fig. 2 elements 21, 41, and 15, where the cyclone housing is a subset of the cyclone unit which encompasses an entirety of the cyclone unit) including a swirl flow channel (Fig. 5 element 28) connecting the outlet of the connecting pipe and an inlet (Fig. 5 element 28a) of the cyclone dust collector (Fig. 2, 0022 and 0034).
Regarding claim 11, Naoto discloses the limitations of claim 10, as described above, and further discloses the cyclone housing includes the cylinder and the connecting pipe (Fig. 2, where the cylinder (53) is a subset of element 41).
Regarding claim 12, Naoto discloses the limitations of claim 10, as described above, and further discloses the cyclone dust collector includes a dust cup (Fig. 2 element 21) including an internal space into which air flows through the inlet of the cyclone dust collector (Fig. 2, where the internal space defined by the dust cup (21) corresponds to an internal space which air flows through the inlet of the cyclone dust collector), and a mesh pipe (Fig. 3 element 47) in the internal space of the dust cup (Fig. 2), and the dust cup is attachable to and detachable from the cyclone housing (Fig. 2 shows the dust cup (21) attached to the rest of the cyclone housing (21, 41, and 15) and Fig. 3 shows the dust cup (21) separated from the rest of the cyclone housing (21, 41, and 15), therefore the dust cup (21) is attachable and detachable (e.g. capable of being attached and detached) from the cyclone housing (21, 41, and 15)).
Regarding claim 13, Naoto discloses the limitations of claim 12, as described above, and further discloses air passing through the mesh pipe flows out through the outlet of the cyclone dust collector (Fig. 2), and the connecting pipe has a central axis parallel to a central axis of the mesh pipe (Fig. 3, where element C1 corresponds to a central axis of the connecting pipe and element A1 corresponds to a central axis of the mesh pipe).
Regarding claim 14, Naoto discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the main unit includes an attachment portion configured to attach or detach the cylinder (0032, where mounting recesses corresponds to an attachment portion which are configured to attach or detach the cylinder (53)).
Regarding claim 15, Naoto discloses the limitations of claim 14, as described above, and further discloses the attachment portion surrounds the suction port (Fig. 2, the attachment portion is located on the main housing (2) which is radially outward of the suction port and would therefore be surrounding the suction port) to attach and detach the cylinder through rotation relative to the cylinder (0032).
Regarding claim 18, Naoto discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the filter unit is attached to the main unit (Fig. 2, the filter (55) is attached to the main unit through the filter holder (56) which is attached to the main housing (2) which is part of the main unit, therefore the filter unit (55 and 56) is attached to the main unit).
Regarding claim 19, Naoto discloses the limitations of claim 18, as described above, and further discloses the filter holder includes a handle (Fig. 3 element 55a) facing a rear surface of the filter (Fig. 3 and see annotated Fig. 2’ above), connected to the ring (Fig. 2), and interior to the smaller-diameter portion (see annotated Fig. 2’’’’ below).
PNG
media_image5.png
1083
776
media_image5.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 3 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naoto (WO2019065085), supplied by Applicant in IDS filed 11/1/2022 and a new PDF translation provided by examiner in this action, as evidenced by Ohta (WO2019026308), attached as a PDF in office action filed 2/21/2025.
Regarding claim 3, Naoto discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to disclose the outlet of the cyclone dust collector deviates from a center of the opening of the cylinder. Pursuant of MPEP 2144.04-VI-C, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the outlet of the cyclone dust collector and the center of the opening of the cylinder, since it has been held that mere rearrangement of parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to rearrange the parts of a cleaner as many different arrangements of these components are known, as evidenced by Ohta which shows a different arrangement than that shown in Naoto, specifically an arrangement where the outlet of the cyclone dust collector deviates from the center of the opening of the cylinder (see annotated Fig. 7 below). Examiner also finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to rearrange the parts to achieve an optimum airflow efficiency based on the desired level of suction.
PNG
media_image6.png
833
517
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, Naoto discloses the limitations of claim 2, as described above, but fails to disclose the outlet of the cyclone dust collector deviates from a center of the opening of the cylinder. Pursuant of MPEP 2144.04-VI-C, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the outlet of the cyclone dust collector and the center of the opening of the cylinder, since it has been held that mere rearrangement of parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to rearrange the parts of a cleaner as many different arrangements of these components are known, as evidenced by Ohta which shows a different arrangement than that shown in Naoto, specifically an arrangement where the outlet of the cyclone dust collector deviates from the center of the opening of the cylinder (see annotated Fig. 7 above). Examiner also finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to rearrange the parts to achieve an optimum airflow efficiency based on the desired level of suction.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naoto (WO2019065085), supplied by Applicant in IDS filed 11/1/2022 and a new PDF translation provided by examiner in this action, in view of Beaulieu et al. (US6474747), hereinafter Beaulieu, and as evidenced by Lofgren (US2851718).
Regarding claim 16, Naoto discloses the limitations of claim 15, as described above, and further discloses the attachment portion locks the cylinder at a first position in a rotation direction (0032).
Naoto fails to disclose the attachment portion can also lock the cylinder at a second position different from the first position.
Beaulieu is also concerned with powered hand-operated tools and teaches an attachment portion (Fig. 3 element 28) locks a cylinder (46) at a first position and a second position (5:18-55, where the different desired orientations correspond to a first position and a second position different from the first position). It 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 to modify Naoto to make the attachment portion be able to lock the cylinder in multiple positions, including both first and second positions, where the second position is different than the first position, as taught by Beaulieu, because Beaulieu teaches that having the capability of locking in several positions allows for different orientations depending on what application is being used (5:25-39). As evidenced by Lofgren (Figs. 2 and 3, 1:28-32, 2:33-47), adjusting a nozzle’s orientation for a specific cleaning purpose is old and well known in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the larger-diameter portion of Naoto is not outside of an outer diameter of the filter and instead abuts against the interior of the filter. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds that based on the new interpretation, necessitated by Applicant’s amendment, that element 55a shown in Fig. 3 is now also considered to be part of the filter holder and annotated Fig. 2’’ above shows the larger-diameter portion being outside of an outer diameter of the filter. See rejection of claim 1 above.
Examiner notes that a translation of Naoto has been provided by examiner in this action as there appeared to be text missing in the translation provided by Applicant, specifically around the structure of element 55 discussed in paragraph 0027 of Naoto which discusses how element 55 has a mesh material, a lid, and a flange and therefore all of these elements can be considered separate from each other.
Applicant argues that the smaller-diameter portion of Naoto appears to be a partial toroid and therefore is not cylindrical. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds that the smaller-diameter portion shown in annotated Fig. 2’’ above does is cylindrical (i.e. a shape which is generally cylindrical) as the shape is generally cylindrical and there is also at least a straight section which is a cylinder. See rejection of claim 1 above.
Applicant argues that there is no annular seal which seals between the smaller-diameter portion and the annular rib. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds that annotated Fig. 2’’’ above shows an annular seal and examiner finds that the annular seal contacting the annular rib means that the annular seal is capable of sealing between the annular seal and the annular rib. See rejection of claim 1 above.
Applicant argues that Nam fails to disclose that the inner frame 501 relied upon by examiner to teach a handle is a handle or a structure which could function as a handle. While examiner disagrees with this, based on the new interpretation of Naoto, as necessitated by Applicant’s amendment, examiner finds that element 55a shown in Fig. 3 of Naoto corresponds to a handle facing a rear surface of the filter and connected to the ring and annotated Fig. 2’’’’ above shows the handle being interior to the smaller-diameter portion. See rejection of claim 19 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Holsten (US20130228194) teaches a filter holder (Fig. 7 element 102) including a handle (Fig. 7 element 164). Pullins (US20050015921) teaches a filter holder (all elements shown in Fig. 3C except for elements 45, 46, and 47) including a handle (Fig. 3C element 76).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CALEB A HOLIZNA whose telephone number is (571)272-5659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-4:30.
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 on 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.
/C.A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights