DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the lid (claim 7) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 2 and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities: the term “the sleeve sides” lacks proper antecedent basis. It is assumed that the term is intended to refer to the previously claims “filter bag sides” and will be treated as such for the sake of the current Office Action. 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 7 and 8 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.
Regarding claim 7, it is unclear what structure is intended to represent the claimed “lid”. As noted above, the lid is not shown in the drawings, such that the exact structure defined by the term is unclear and may be considered to be part of the connector plate, due to a lack of any descriptive or functions claimed for the lid.
Regarding claim 8, the term “the axial direction” is unclear because the additional limitation, added to the claim, only partially defines the axial direction as passing through the hole, which will still allow several optional orientations. As best understood by the examiner, claim is intended to define that “filter bag does not extend further than the connector plate radial direction of the hole in the connector plate”, and will be treated as such for the sake of the current Office Action.
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 1-3, 5, 8-12, 14-17 and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Warren et al. (2017/0296007) with Mattsson (3,802,166) provided as evidence.
Regarding claim 1, Warren discloses (multiple embodiments reading on the claimed invention, with reference to Figs. 11-14 for details) a dust bag (310) for a vacuum cleaner comprising: a connector plate (312) comprising a hole section having a hole (318) therein; a filter bag (316) of an air-permeable material (clean air flows out of the filter through the filter media; paragraph 91) positioned on a downstream side of the connector plate; and a sleeve (312) of a flexible material (disclosed as thermoplastic, thermoset or molded paper pulp; paragraph 88; all of which are known in the art to have at least some flexibility when formed as relatively thin layer disclosed for the sleeve 312), positioned on the downstream side of the connector plate outside the filter bag, wherein the sleeve is arranged to hold the filter bag in an initial folded position (Fig. 14) and allow the filter bag to expand when air is blown towards the downstream side of the connector plate through the hole section of the connector plate (Paragraph 90; “when a flow of dirty fluid enters the filter 310 through the inlet opening 318, the pressure of the fluid automatically expands the filter 310”). Additionally, Mattsson discloses another similar flexible filter with a support structure that is disclosed to be form of “suitable sheet-like material like cardboard and plastic, which is generally stiff and yet is flexible to some extent”. Therefore, Mattsson supports the examiner’s previous statement that plastic or molded paper pulp disclosed by Warren, which is nearly identical in physical structure as the cardboard disclosed by Mattsson, will have an inherent amount of flexibility in the sizes and shapes disclosed by Warren, at least in portions of the sleeve (any portion being flexible would read on the claimed “sleeve of flexible material”).
Regarding new independent claim 21, Warren further discloses that eh filter bag has an open end and a closed end (at least in embodiments of Figs. 12 and 18-25C).
Regarding claims 2 and 22, Warren further discloses that the filter bag is connected to the connector plate at filter bag sides, and the sleeve surrounds an entirety of the filter bag sides when the filter bag is in the initial folded position (Fig. 14).
Regarding claims 3 and 23, Warren further discloses a guide (323) on the connector plate, in the form of a flange on the outer perimeter of the connector plate the guide being configured to assist in correctly positioning the dust bag in a vacuum cleaner.
Regarding claim 5, Warren further discloses that a flange extends all around a perimeter of the connector plate.
Regarding claim 8, Warren further discloses that the filter bag (316) does not extend further than the connector plate (312) in a radial direction of the hole in the connector plate (at least in Figs. 14 and 19-25C).
Regarding claim 9, Warren further discloses that the sleeve is formed by a paper material (molded paper pulp; paragraph 88).
Regarding claim 10, Warren further discloses that the sleeve is made of a non-air permeable material (disclosed as thermoplastic, thermoset or molded paper pulp; paragraph 88; all of which are known in the art to be non-air permeable unless modified or specially formed to be air-permeable via apertures, which are not shown or disclosed by Warren).
Regarding claim 11, Warren further discloses that the hole section comprises a seal (paragraph 75) configured to form an airtight connection to a vacuum cleaner when the dust bag is placed in the vacuum cleaner and a hole in the hole section.
Regarding claim 12, Warren further discloses that the sleeve is attached to the connector plate.
Regarding claim 14, Warren further discloses a vacuum cleaner (10) comprising a dust bag holder (20), wherein the dust bag holder is configured to receive a dust bag according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, Warren further discloses that the dust bag is configured to be placed in the dust bag holder and wherein the vacuum cleaner is configured to suck air through the dust bag such that air is sucked axially from a hole in the connector plate through the dust bag.
Regarding claim 16, Warren further discloses that the filter bag and the sleeve are connected to the connector plate.
Regarding claim 17, Warren discloses an alternative embodiment (Figs. 36-37), also having the connector plate (1112), hole section (1118), filter bag (1116) and sleeve (1164) of claim 1, wherein the sleeve comprises: a proximal end (upper end as viewed in Fig. 37) attached to the connector plate; sidewalls extending from the proximal end and surrounding sides of the filter bag in the initial closed position; and a distal end (at reference line for #1164) extending from the sidewalls, wherein the distal end is movable from a closed position in which the distal end encloses an end of the filter bag (Fig. 36), and an opened position (Fig. 37) in which the distal end does not enclose the end of the filter bag, and wherein the distal end is configured to move from the closed position to the open position upon application of a suction force (paragraph 121).
Regarding claim 20, Warren further discloses that the sidewalls and distal end completely enclose the entire filter bag when the filter bag is in the initial closed position and the distal end is in the closed position.
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warren et al. (2017/0296007) as applied to claim 1, and optionally in view of Bjork et al. (2021/0235948).
Warren fails to disclose a lid , but does include some portion of the upper cover (66/312/412 or other structure like the upper lip of opening 418 in a Fig. 18B) that could read on a “lid”, with the claim and application as a whole failing to define any specific structure or function for the claimed “lid”). Further, Bjork discloses a similar flexible filter with a support structure (86) that also includes a lid (102) connected thereto, functioning as a closure when the full bag is removed for disposal, thus sealing up the bag and preventing spillage. Therefore, it also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the dust bag of Warren with a similar lid, flexibly mounted adjacent to the hole section, to provide a closure for the bag once filled.
Claims 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warren et al. (2017/0296007).
Regarding claims 13 and 18, Warren further discloses alternative embodiment (Figs. 24A-24B), having the connector plate (912) filter bag (916) and sleeve (not numbered but clearly shown), and teaches that a lower closure may be formed from several materials including film, foil, paper, bag or sleeve that may include a perforation, slit, tear line or hinge that allows the filter to move to the expanded (open) position (paragraph 110). Therefore, when any of a film, foil, paper, bag or sleeve is provided with a hinge, the hinge may be considered to be structurally equivalent to a fold, such that the sleeve would be considered to be folded in an end distanced away from the connector plate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8 July 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues:
That Warren does not disclose the sleeve being flexible.
In response, the examiner has included the Mattsson reference to support he previous rejection and maintains that the material disclosed by Warren, of similar size and thickness as shown, will inherently have some level of flexibility at some portion of the sleeve.
That there is no indication of the function of allowing the bag to unfold during use.
The claimed function is merely a function, wherein the claimed structure is what allows the function to be performed. The examiner also maintains that the structure disclosed by Warren would inherently be capable of performing the claimed step of releasing the filter, and Warren does specifically disclose this function in paragraph 87, “the filter 310 is installed in a device in the collapsed position and then automatically moves to the expanded position. The filter 310 can automatically move to the expanded position by air pressure, gravity, mechanical push or pull, etc.”.
That Warren does not teach that the sleeve is structurally separate from the connector plate.
In response, the claims do not require that the sleeve is structurally separate, and regardless, the structure disclosed by Warren can be considered to show the sleeve as structurally separate from the connector plate (at least at groove 340 in Figs. 14 and 15A, as in physically separated/spaced away from the plate 312).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Each of Himukai (4,545,794), Lawrence et al. (11,950,749) and Zhang (2008/0147832) disclose filter bags having similar structure as the applicant’s claimed invention.
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 BRYAN R MULLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4489. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Brian Keller can be reached on 571-272-8548. 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.
/BRYAN R MULLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723 2 October 2025