DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “for removably attachment” in line 5 should be changed to “for removable attachment to the main body”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-3 and 5 are rejected over 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Florek (DE 102016214459 A1) in view of Hedlund et al. (2012/0131763).
Regarding claim 1, Florek discloses a supporting structure (all structure of Fig. 6), comprising: a top structure (8/22) configured to be connected to a main body of a cleaning device (1); and a side structure (22) comprising: and a support air inlet channel (10) for communicating a dirty air inlet of the cleaning device and a dust bag inlet. Regarding the amendments to claim 1 (filed 15 October 2025), effectively incorporating previously rejected claim 4, Florek further discloses that the channel inlet (10) includes a flange (“entrance” 10 defining a flange in nearly an identical manner as the disclosed/claimed invention), having a seal (13) at a position butted with a tail end of the dirty air inlet of the cleaning device, but fails to disclose a groove along a channel direction for receiving the seal. Hedlund teaches a similar sealing member for connecting a channel inlet of a dry collection container to an inlet of a suction cleaner, and teaches that a similar seal is provided, with a supporting groove (12) surrounding the channel inlet with the groove along a channel direction to support the seal (paragraph 44). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the flange of Florek with a similar groove to support the seal of Florek, as taught by Hedlund, to provide a secure connection for the seal on the channel inlet, which will prevent accidental disengagement of the seal, which would prevent proper sealing of the airflow during use.
Regarding claim 2, Florek further discloses that the top structure comprises: an air-permeable grid in a flat or curved shape (lateral sides of portion 22 having air permeable grids in flat and curved shapes); and a fastener (38) configured for mating with a corresponding clamping groove in the main body of the cleaning device for fixing.
Regarding claim 3, Florek further discloses that the side structure comprises two support legs (opposite sides of upper end of portion 22) and two sliding grooves (42) disposed on the two support legs respectively, configured to accommodate two sides of an installation assembly of the dust bag to be inserted and slide in the two sliding grooves; and when the two sides of the installation assembly move in the two sliding grooves to end points of the two sliding grooves, respectively, an inner opening of the support air inlet channel is aligned with an opening of the dust bag to form a through air inlet channel.
Regarding claim 5, Florek further discloses that the side structure further comprises: an elastic fastener assembly (44) disposed on a lower side of the support air inlet channel for limiting movement of the dust bag after the dust bag is installed in place (understood to be elastic due to the location and disclosure that the claws 44 hook the heels 43 of the bag, requiring some form of elasticity for the claws to engage the bag once inserted).
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Florek (DE 102016214459 A1) in view of Hedlund et al. (2012/0131763), as applied to claims 1 and 5, and further in view of Bott et al. (WO 2003/053205 A1).
Regarding claim 6, as discussed supra relative to claim 5, Florek discloses a fastener assembly, but fails to show specific details of how the fastener assembly engages the bag. Bott discloses a similar fastener assembly for securing a bag to a supporting structure, comprising an elastic component (16), and a fastener (38) comprising: a sliding part(42); a hook part (52) at one end of the sliding part, cooperating with an elastic fastener stop bar (22) on the dust bag to limit movement the dust bag; and an abutting part (rear wall of sliding part 42, where the elastic component connects thereto) cooperating with the elastic component to achieve a sliding and reset of the whole elastic fastener. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to refer to the structure disclosed by Bott for additional details for the corresponding fastener assembly of Florek, wherein providing the more detailed structure of Bott will provide the same function disclosed by Florek, with a known structure that is relatively simple and easily manufactured.
Regarding claim 7, Bott further discloses that the elastic component is a spring (elastic member 16 functions as a leaf spring), one end of the spring abuts against the supporting structure (inner rear wall of gap 34, adjacent to the elastic component, which is part of the supporting structure for the bag), and the other end of the spring abuts against the abutting part (rear wall of sliding part 42, where the elastic component connects thereto).
Regarding claim 8, Bott further discloses that the supporting structure is provided with a groove (34) suitable for accommodating the elastic fastener assembly; and the elastic component and the abutting part are disposed in the groove, one side of the abutting part not abutted against the elastic component is in contact with a side wall of the groove when the elastic component is installed.
Regarding claim 9, Bott further discloses that the hook part is formed as a substantially wedge-shaped member, and is formed by a plane (52) substantially parallel to the top structure (when installed on the supporting structure of Florek for the bag to be inserted in a similar orientation) and an inclined surface (38) intersecting the plane and facing a bottom of a dust bucket.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9 of Remarks, filed 15 October 2025, with respect to the objection to the drawings, claim objection and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive, and the objections and rejections have been withdrawn.
However, applicant's arguments regarding the prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant only argues that the combination of Florek and Hedlund fails to disclose the flange with a groove, as claimed, based on the general definition of the term “flange”. However, the examiner has pointed out above that the Florek reference does include a flange, with the groove being taught by Hedlund. Therefore, the examiner maintains the above prior art rejections.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 at 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 16 December 2025
Prosecution Insights