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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/23/2026 has been considered and the IDS submitted on 2/2/2023 and 6/27/2025 have been reconsidered. Examiner notes that the reference in the IDS filed 6/27/2025 which was crossed out, and therefore not considered, was crossed out because no NPL for that reference was filed and therefore it cannot be considered. Pursuant MPEP 609.04(a)(II) “37 CFR 1.98(a)(2)(iii) requires a copy of a pending U.S. application that is being cited in an IDS if (A) the cited information is not part of the specification, including the claims, and the drawings (e.g., an Office Action, remarks in an amendment paper, etc.), or (B) the cited application is not stored in the USPTO’s IFW system. The requirement in 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2)(iii) for a legible copy of the specification, including the claims, and drawings of each cited pending U.S. patent application (or portion of the application which caused it to be listed) is sua sponte waived where the cited pending application is stored in the USPTO’s IFW system. This waiver is limited to the specification, including the claims, and drawings in the U.S. application (or portion of the application). If material other than the specification, including the claims, and drawings in the file of a U.S. patent application is being cited in an IDS, the IDS must contain a legible copy of such material.” Examiner finds that an Office Action does not qualify for the exception waiver and therefore a copy of the Office Action cited in the IDS filed 6/27/2025 must be submitted.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: "a retaining-rib member, which is inserted" should read --a retaining-rib member, which is insertable" to avoid claiming a process step in an apparatus claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by a first interpretation of Naoto (WO2019065085A1), attached as a PDF in office action filed 8/14/2025.
Regarding claim 1, the first interpretation of Naoto discloses a vacuum cleaner comprising: a main-body assembly (Fig. 2 element 2), which has a suction port (see annotated Fig. 2 below); and a filter assembly (Fig. 3 elements 41 and 55), at least a portion of which is disposed more forward than the main-body assembly (see annotated Fig. 2 below, which shows at least a portion of the filter assembly being disposed more forward than the main-body assembly) so as to oppose the suction port (see annotated Fig. 2 below), the filter assembly being detachably mountable on the main-body assembly (Fig. 2, 0029); wherein the filter assembly comprises: a support frame (the combination of Fig. 3 element 41 (excluding elements 53, 53b, and 53c) and 0027, "a cup-shaped container with air passage holes formed in the bottom surface" and "a mesh-like or slit-like lid" corresponds to a support frame); a filter (Fig. 3 element 55, specifically "the filter material" element of element 55 discussed in 0027 corresponds to a filter), which is supported on a front-end portion of the support frame (Fig. 2 and see annotated Fig. 3 below) and covers a front-facing side of the support frame (see annotated Fig. 2’ below); and a retaining-rib member (Fig. 3 elements 53, 53b, and 53c), which is insertable, from the front (see annotated Fig. 2 below, which shows that the retaining-rib member would be inserted from the front (i.e. from the forward direction toward the rearward direction)), into one or more grooves provided on the main-body assembly (0032, where "mounting recesses" corresponds to one or more grooves provided on the main-body assembly), the retaining-rib member being fixed to a rear-end portion of the support frame (see annotated Fig. 3 below, where the retaining-rib member being integral to the support frame, including a rear-end portion of the support frame, corresponds to the retaining-rib member being fixed to a rear-end portion of the support frame).
PNG
media_image1.png
562
738
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
468
629
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
855
426
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, the first interpretation of Naoto discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the retaining-rib member has a circular-ring shape (Fig. 3, 0032, where element 53 of the retaining-ring member being cylindrical corresponds to the retaining-ring member having a circular-ring shape).
Regarding claim 5, the first interpretation of Naoto discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses a dust-collecting assembly (Fig. 3 element 21), at least a portion of which is disposed more forward than the main-body assembly (see annotated Fig. 2 above) and which comprises an assembly-tube part (Fig. 3, the wall structure which is "a large-diameter cylindrical portion" which defines element 22 discussed in paragraph 0015) in which the filter assembly is housed (Fig. 2, where at least a portion of the filter assembly is housed within the assembly-tube part); wherein the support frame comprises a support-rib part (Fig. 3 elements 49 and 51), which contacts an assembly- support part provided on the dust-collecting assembly (see annotated Fig. 2’’ below).
PNG
media_image4.png
700
736
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, the first interpretation of Naoto discloses the limitations of claim 5, as described above, and further discloses the support-rib part has a circular-ring shape (0026-0027, where the support-rib part being cylindrical corresponds to the support-rib part having a circular-ring shape).
Regarding claim 7, the first interpretation of Naoto discloses the limitations of claim 5, as described above, and further discloses the support frame comprises a front-side tube part (Fig. 3 element 42, 0026); and the support-rib part protrudes radially outward from the front-side tube part (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 8, the first interpretation of Naoto discloses the limitations of claim 7, as described above, and further discloses the support frame comprises a rear-side tube part (Fig. 3 element 52), which is disposed more rearward than the front-side tube part (see annotated Fig. 2 above); and the retaining-rib member is fixed to the rear-side tube part (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 11, the first interpretation of Naoto discloses the limitations of claim 5, as described above, and further discloses the dust-collecting assembly comprises a cyclonic, dust-collecting unit (Fig. 3 elements 22 and 23).
Regarding claim 14, the first interpretation of Naoto discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the one or more grooves are an upper groove and a lower groove that is spaced apart from the upper groove (Fig. 3, 0032, since both 53b and 53c are inserted into grooves (i.e. recesses), the groove associated with element 53b corresponds to an upper groove and the groove associated with element 53c corresponds to a lower groove).
Claims 1 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by a second interpretation of Naoto (WO2019065085A1), attached as a PDF in office action filed 8/14/2025.
Regarding claim 1, the second interpretation of Naoto discloses a vacuum cleaner comprising: a main-body assembly (Fig. 2 element 2), which has a suction port (see second interpretation annotated Fig. 2 below); and a filter assembly (Fig. 2 elements 41, 55, 56, and 7), at least a portion of which is disposed more forward than the main-body assembly (see second interpretation annotated Fig. 2 below, which shows at least a portion of the filter assembly being disposed more forward than the main-body assembly) so as to oppose the suction port (see second interpretation annotated Fig. 2 below), the filter assembly being detachably mountable on the main-body assembly (Fig. 2, 0029); wherein the filter assembly comprises: a support frame (Fig. 2 elements 41 and 56, and 0027, "a cup-shaped container with air passage holes formed in the bottom surface" and "a mesh-like or slit-like lid" corresponds to a support frame); a filter (Fig. 3 element 55, specifically "the filter material" element of element 55 discussed in 0027 corresponds to a filter), which is supported on a front-end portion of the support frame (Fig. 2 and see second interpretation annotated Fig. 3 below) and covers a front-facing side of the support frame (see second interpretation annotated Fig. 2’ below); and a retaining-rib member (Fig. 2 element 7), which is insertable, from the front (see second interpretation annotated Fig. 2 below, which shows that the retaining-rib member would be inserted from the front (i.e. from the forward direction toward the rearward direction)), into one or more grooves provided on the main-body assembly (see second interpretation annotated Fig. 2 below), the retaining-rib member being fixed to a rear-end portion of the support frame (see second interpretation annotated Fig. 3 below, where the retaining-rib member being integral to the support frame, including a rear-end portion of the support frame, corresponds to the retaining-rib member being fixed to a rear-end portion of the support frame).
PNG
media_image5.png
893
725
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
521
634
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
905
432
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, the second interpretation of Naoto discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the main-body assembly includes a body part (Fig. 2 elements 2a and 2b, where the body part is a subset of the main-body assembly which encompasses the entirety of the main-body assembly) that houses a suction unit (Fig. 2 element 9) and that comprises a side-plate part, a front-plate part, an inner-tube part, and an outer-tube part (see second interpretation annotated Fig. 2’’ below), and the one or more grooves are defined by a rear surface of one or more protruding parts that protrude(s) perpendicularly from an inner surface of the outer-tube part, a front surface of the front-plate part, and a segment of the inner surface of the outer-tube part that is disposed between the one or more protruding parts and the front surface of the front-plate part (see second interpretation annotated Fig. 2’’ below and also see second interpretation annotated Fig. 2 above for the direction of front (i.e. forward) and rear (i.e. rearward)).
PNG
media_image8.png
837
724
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, the second interpretation of Naoto discloses the limitations of claim 15, as described above, and further discloses the retaining-rib member comprises an annular fixing part and an annular lip part (see second interpretation annotated Fig. 2’’’ below); and in the state in which the retaining rib member is disposed in the one or more grooves, the annular lip part contacts the front surface of the front-plate part to seal a boundary between a rear-end portion of the filter assembly and the front-plate part (see second interpretation annotated Fig. 2’’’ below, where the annular lip part contacting the front surface of the front plate part is capable of sealing a boundary between the rear -end portion of the filter assembly and the front-plate part).
PNG
media_image9.png
464
618
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Claims 1 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by a third interpretation of Naoto (WO2019065085A1), attached as a PDF in office action filed 8/14/2025.
Regarding claim 1, the third interpretation of Naoto discloses a vacuum cleaner comprising: a main-body assembly (Fig. 2 element 2), which has a suction port (see third interpretation annotated Fig. 2 below); and a filter assembly (Fig. 2 elements 41, 55, 56, and 7), at least a portion of which is disposed more forward than the main-body assembly (see third interpretation annotated Fig. 2 below, which shows at least a portion of the filter assembly being disposed more forward than the main-body assembly) so as to oppose the suction port (see third interpretation annotated Fig. 2 below), the filter assembly being detachably mountable on the main-body assembly (Fig. 2, 0029); wherein the filter assembly comprises: a support frame (Fig. 3 element 41, excluding elements 53, 53b, 53c, 46, and 47); a filter (Fig. 3 elements 46 and 47), which is supported on a front-end portion of the support frame (Fig. 2 and see third interpretation annotated Fig. 3 below) and covers a front-facing side of the support frame (see third interpretation annotated Fig. 3 below); and a retaining-rib member (Fig. 3 elements 53, 53b, and 53c), which is insertable, from the front (see third interpretation annotated Fig. 2 below, which shows that the retaining-rib member would be inserted from the front (i.e. from the forward direction toward the rearward direction)), into one or more grooves provided on the main-body assembly (0032, where "mounting recesses" corresponds to one or more grooves provided on the main-body assembly), the retaining-rib member being fixed to a rear-end portion of the support frame (see third interpretation annotated Fig. 3 below, where the retaining-rib member being integral to the support frame, including a rear-end portion of the support frame, corresponds to the retaining-rib member being fixed to a rear-end portion of the support frame).
PNG
media_image10.png
504
630
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
562
738
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 21, the third interpretation of Naoto discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the support frame comprises a cylindrical lattice part (Fig. 3 element 42b, 0029, where elements 44 and the spaces between elements 44, which are subsets of element 42b, define the lattice structure), and the filter has a bottomed hollow cylindrical shape that covers the cylindrical lattice part from the front (Fig. 2, where the filter has a generally cylindrical shape and element 46 defines a bottom of the filter).
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 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the first interpretation of Naoto (WO2019065085A1), attached as a PDF in office action filed 8/14/2025, in view of Fedak (US20160051909).
Regarding claim 2, the first interpretation of Naoto discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to disclose the retaining-rib member is an elastic body.
Fedak is also concerned with a vacuum cleaner and teaches the retaining-rib member (Fig. 3 element 28, 0038 and 0040) is an elastic body (0038 and 0040, where "an elastic sealing elastomer" corresponds to the retaining-rib member being an elastic body). 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 the vacuum cleaner of Naoto to make the retaining-rib member be an elastic body, as taught by Fedak, because Fedak teaches that making a retaining-rib member be an elastic body allows for sealing between a clean side (e.g. the front side of the filter of Naoto) and a dirty side (e.g. the suction inlet of Naoto) (0038).
Regarding claim 13, the first interpretation of Naoto discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the retaining-rib member is annular (Fig. 3, 0032, where element 53 of the retaining-ring member being cylindrical corresponds to the retaining-ring member having a circular-ring shape).
The first interpretation of Naoto fails to disclose the retaining-rib member is composed of an elastomer.
Fedak is also concerned with a vacuum cleaner and teaches the retaining-rib member (Fig. 3 element 28, 0038 and 0040) is composed of an elastomer (0038 and 0040, where "an elastic sealing elastomer" corresponds to an elastomer). 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 the vacuum cleaner of Naoto to make the retaining-rib member be composed of an elastomer, as taught by Fedak, because Fedak teaches that making a retaining-rib member be composed of an elastomer allows for sealing between a clean side (e.g. the front side of the filter of Naoto) and a dirty side (e.g. the suction inlet of Naoto) (0038).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the third interpretation of Naoto (WO2019065085A1), attached as a PDF in office action filed 8/14/2025, in view of Ichihashi et al. (US20220240741), hereinafter Ichihashi.
Regarding claim 12, the third interpretation of Naoto discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the filter is disposed over lattice parts (Fig. 3 elements 44) of the support frame (Fig. 3, 0029).
The third interpretation of Naoto fails to disclose the filter is a cloth.
Ichihashi is also concerned with a vacuum cleaner and teaches the filter (Fig. 8 element 80) is a cloth (0053, where "a nonwoven fabric" corresponds to a cloth) disposed over lattice parts (Fig. 8 elements 78, 75, and 74) of the support frame (Fig. 9). Pursuant of MPEP 2144.06-II, it has been held obvious to substitute equivalents for the same purpose. The third interpretation of Naoto discloses the invention except that the filter material is a synthetic resin instead of a cloth. Ichihashi shows that a cloth material is an equivalent structure known in the art (i.e. both the synthetic resin and the cloth material are known to be used as filtering materials which cover a lattice structure to filter debris in a vacuum cleaner). Therefore, because these two filter material types were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to substitute a cloth material for a synthetic resin material.
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the second interpretation of Naoto (WO2019065085A1), attached as a PDF in office action filed 8/14/2025, in view of Girondi (US20140150388).
Regarding claim 22, the second interpretation of Naoto discloses a vacuum cleaner comprising: a main-body assembly (Fig. 2 element 2), which has a suction port (see second interpretation annotated Fig. 2 above); and a filter assembly (Fig. 2 elements 41, 55, 56, and 7), at least a portion of which is disposed more forward than the main-body assembly (see second interpretation annotated Fig. 2 above, which shows at least a portion of the filter assembly being disposed more forward than the main-body assembly) so as to oppose the suction port (see second interpretation annotated Fig. 2 above); wherein the filter assembly comprises: a support frame (Fig. 2 elements 41 and 56, and 0027, "a cup-shaped container with air passage holes formed in the bottom surface" and "a mesh-like or slit-like lid" corresponds to a support frame); a filter (Fig. 3 element 55, specifically "the filter material" element of element 55 discussed in 0027 corresponds to a filter), which is supported on the support frame (Fig. 2, 0027); and a retaining-rib member (Fig. 2 element 7), which is insertable, from the front (see second interpretation annotated Fig. 2 above, which shows that the retaining-rib member would be inserted from the front (i.e. from the forward direction toward the rearward direction)), into one or more grooves provided on the main-body assembly (see second interpretation annotated Fig. 2 above), the retaining-rib member being fixed to the support frame (Fig. 3, where the retaining-rib member being integral to the support frame corresponds to the retaining-rib member being fixed to the support frame).
The second interpretation of Naoto fails to disclose the retaining-rib member is an elastic body, and the main-body assembly and the filter assembly are configured to be connectable to each other merely by pushing the filter assembly into the main-body assembly from the front toward the rear and causing the retaining-rib member to elastically deform prior to being inserted into the one or more grooves.
Girondi is also concerned with attachment of a filtering element and teaches the retaining-rib member (Fig. 1 element 55) is an elastic body, and the main-body assembly (Fig. 1 element 40) and the filter assembly (Fig. 1 element 50) are configured to be connectable to each other merely by pushing the filter assembly into the main-body assembly from the front toward the rear (Abstract, where “a first axial translation for mutual approaching between the filtering cartridge (50) and the support body (42)” corresponds to pushing the filter assembly into the main-body assembly from the front toward the rear) and causing the retaining-rib member to elastically deform prior to being inserted into the one or more grooves (Figs. 2-3 and 5, Abstract and 0090, where element 43 corresponds to one or more grooves and “snap-coupled” corresponds to the retaining-rib member being capable of elastically deforming prior to being inserted into the one or more grooves as a snap-fit connection requires elastic deformation of an element to snap into a corresponding groove or recess). Pursuant of MPEP 2144.06-II, it has been held obvious to substitute equivalents for the same purpose. The second interpretation of Naoto discloses the invention except that the connection between main body assembly and the filter assembly is a twisting connection where the retaining-rib member is nonelastic instead of a pushing connection where the retaining-rib member elastically deforms prior to being inserted into the one or more grooves, hereinafter referred to as a snap-fit connection. Girondi shows that a snap-fit connection is an equivalent structure known in the art (i.e. both connection types selectively hold a filter assembly in place). Therefore, because these two connection types were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to substitute a snap-fit connection for a twisting connection where the retaining-rib member is nonelastic.
Regarding claim 23, the second interpretation of Naoto, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 22, as described above, and further discloses the main-body assembly includes a body part (Naoto, Fig. 2 elements 2a and 2b, where the body part is a subset of the main-body assembly which encompasses the entirety of the main-body assembly) that houses a suction unit (Naoto, Fig. 2 element 9); the body part comprises a side-plate part, a front-plate part, an inner-tube part, and an outer-tube part (Naoto, see second interpretation annotated Fig. 2’’ above); one or more protruding parts protrude radially inward from an inner surface of the outer-tube part and extend in a front-rear direction parallel to an insertion direction of the filter assembly (Naoto, see second interpretation annotated Fig. 2’’ above and also see second interpretation annotated Fig. 2 above for the direction of front (i.e. forward) and rear (i.e. rearward), where the one or more protruding parts extend in both a front-rear direction and a top-bottom direction); the one or more grooves are disposed rearward of the one or more protruding parts (Naoto, see second interpretation annotated Fig. 2’’ above and also see second interpretation annotated Fig. 2 above, where the one or more protruding parts define the one or more grooves and the one or more grooves are therefore located rearward of the one or more protruding parts), and the retaining-rib member is configured to elastically deform while passing over the one or more protruding parts prior to the retaining-rib member being inserted into the one or more grooves (Girondi, Figs. 2-3 and 5, Abstract and 0090, where “snap-coupled” corresponds to the retaining-rib member being capable of elastically deforming while passing over the one or more protruding parts prior to the retaining-rib member being inserted into the one or more grooves as a snap-fit connection requires elastic deformation of an element to snap into a corresponding groove or recess and since Fig. 5 shows the retaining rib member in an elastically deformed).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: regarding claim 9, the closest art of record, the first interpretation of Naoto (WO2019065085A1), fail to disclose, suggest, or make obvious in combination with the additional elements or each respective claim the following features:
Regarding claim 9, the first interpretation of Naoto fails to disclose that "the assembly-support part protrudes radially inward from an inner surface of the assembly-tube part" and in fact teaches the opposite as the support part of Naoto protrudes radially outward from an inner surface of the assembly-tube part. This is shown in annotated Fig. 2' above.
Claim 10 is allowed as being dependent from an allowed claim.
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.”
Claims 17-18 are 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: regarding claim 17, the closest art of record, the second interpretation of Naoto (WO2019065085A1), fail to disclose, suggest, or make obvious in combination with the additional elements or each respective claim the following features:
Regarding claim 17, the second interpretation of Naoto fails to disclose that "the annular fixing part overlaps the one or more protruding parts in the front-rear direction of the main-body assembly" as the annular fixing part is located radially inward of the one or more protruding parts and therefore cannot be considered to overlap in the front-rear direction of the main-body (i.e. a horizontal line drawn in the front-rear direction would only ever touch either the annular fixing part or the one or more protruding parts, but never both the annular fixing part and the one or more protruding parts simultaneously). This is shown in second interpretation annotated Fig. 2 above.
Claim 18 would be allowable as being dependent on an allowable claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/13/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the patent applications cited in the IDS filed 2/2/2023 and the office action cited in IDS filed 6/27/2025 do not need to be provided, citing MPEP 609.04(a). Examiner respectfully disagrees. While examiner agrees that the patent applications from IDS filed 2/2/2023 do not need to be provided, examiner finds that the office action cited in IDS filed 6/27/2025 does need to be provided. Pursuant MPEP 609.04(a)(II) “37 CFR 1.98(a)(2)(iii) requires a copy of a pending U.S. application that is being cited in an IDS if (A) the cited information is not part of the specification, including the claims, and the drawings (e.g., an Office Action, remarks in an amendment paper, etc.), or (B) the cited application is not stored in the USPTO’s IFW system. The requirement in 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2)(iii) for a legible copy of the specification, including the claims, and drawings of each cited pending U.S. patent application (or portion of the application which caused it to be listed) is sua sponte waived where the cited pending application is stored in the USPTO’s IFW system. This waiver is limited to the specification, including the claims, and drawings in the U.S. application (or portion of the application). If material other than the specification, including the claims, and drawings in the file of a U.S. patent application is being cited in an IDS, the IDS must contain a legible copy of such material.” Examiner finds that an Office Action does not qualify for the exception waiver and therefore a copy of the Office Action cited in the IDS filed 6/27/2025 must be submitted.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that the first interpretation of Naoto fails to disclose that the filter covers a front-facing side of the support frame. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds that the first interpretation of Naoto fails to disclose that the filter covers a front-facing side of the support frame (see annotated Fig. 2’ above). See rejection of claim 1 above.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 22 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection rely on a different combination of prior art as the combination of prior art challenged by Applicant in the Arguments/Remarks. See rejection of claim 22 above.
Conclusion
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 at 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