DETAILED 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, 2, 4, 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wolfe et al. (9,198,552).
Regarding claim 1, Wolfe discloses a dust suction device with a storage state, comprising: a dust collection barrel (18), comprising a barrel inner space, an assembling opening communicating with the barrel inner space, and at least two connectors (shown in Fig. 1, not numbered) disposed on an outer surface of the dust collection barrel and adjacent to the assembling opening, the assembling opening having an opening diameter; a supporting ring (upper plate cover of 18) placed at the assembling opening, comprising a ring outer diameter larger than the opening diameter, and a ring inner diameter (62); and a dust suction assembly (14), comprising a shell (shown in Fig. 3), and at least two connecting structures (75) formed on an outer surface of the shell, the at least two connecting structures being provided for assembling with the at least two connectors to restrict the dust suction assembly from separating from the dust collection barrel (the connecting structure assembled with the two connectors on the barrel via the supporting ring), the shell having at least one shell outer diameter, the at least one shell outer diameter being smaller than the opening diameter, the at least one shell outer diameter being larger than the ring inner diameter, the dust suction assembly having a use state that the supporting ring is provided as a base of the dust suction assembly to stack the dust suction assembly above the dust collection barrel (Fig. 1), and would be inherently capable of having a storage state of being placed in the barrel inner space and being completely stored in the barrel inner spaced (due to the relative sizes shown for the barrel and the dust suction assembly, which may further have the filter 30 removed therefrom, to allow the shell 14 to easily fit underneath the screen cage 25), wherein the supporting ring is separable from the dust collection barrel and the dust suction assembly without disassembling the dust suction assembly (as shown in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 2, Wolfe further discloses that the supporting ring includes an auxiliary positioning rib (65) disposed on a side facing the dust suction assembly.
PNG
media_image1.png
387
451
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Wolfe further discloses that the at least two connecting structure comprises a groove (A) formed on the shell, and a connecting protrusion (75) formed in the groove and cooperating with one of the at least two connectors.
Regarding claim 5, Wolfe further discloses that the shell comprises a barrel-shaped cover upper portion in Fig. 3) and a bottom plate (70 in Fig. 3) matched with the barrel-shaped cover, and the bottom plate includes at least one air vent communicating with the barrel inner space (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 7, Wolfe further discloses that the dust suction assembly comprises a handle mounted on the shell, and the shell includes an accommodating groove accommodating the handle (as seen in Figs. 1 and 2, with the handle in the groove in Fig. 1).
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolfe et al. (9,198,552) in view of Gierer et al. (2010/0162516).
Wolfe discloses the suction device, as discussed supra, with the bottom plate accommodating mounting hub (77; equivalent to the claimed secondary air passage plate) for positioning a filter thereon that defines the are vent of the plate, but fails to disclose supporting ribs or plurality of through holes. Gierer discloses a similar vacuum cleaner having a bottom plate of the suction assembly, that is also configured to hold a filter thereon, very similar to Wolfe, and teaches that the bottom plate includes a plurality of supporting ribs (clearly shown in Fig. 4) connecting a bottom plate (133) to a secondary air passage plate (in the center, having notches 202 thereon), and defines a plurality of through holes due to internal ribs that prevent the float (122) from passing through the opening. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the bottom plate of Wolfe with similar supporting ribs, being well known in the art to increased strength while minimizing weight, particularly in plastic objects, and commonly used in vacuum cleaner design and also to provide a plurality of internal ribs within the air vent, to provide the overflow preventing float valve, similar to Gierer, which is commonly known to prevent damage to the suction motor that would be caused by overflowing liquid.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolfe et al. (9,198,552) in view of Andren et al. (8,567,828) and Coulonvaux et al. (6,022,055).
Wolfe discloses the connectors on the barrel, but does not disclose specific structure, likely because latches for securing the lid to the barrel are old and well-known in the art. However, the latches of Wolfe appear to be common “snap-type” latches, as disclosed by Andren and Coulonvaux, with known advantages of self-locking via the linkages, and both including a base (where lower portion is connected to the barrel) fixed on the outer surface of the dust collection barrel, a bridge (12 of Andren, 420 in Fig. 13 of Coulonvaux) pivotally connected on the base, and a hook (11 and 76, respectively) connected to the bridge. Additionally, relative to claim 9, Andren and Coulonvaux disclose that the hooks each comprise a straight section (inner left side linear wall on hook 11 of Andren, 350 of Coulonvaux) connected to the bridge, an oblique section (opposed side of hook 11 from the linear side of Andren and 76 of Coulonvaux) connected to the straight section that would be inclined toward the shell with respect to the straight section, and a hook-shaped section (11a of Andren, 380/381/388 of Coulonvaux) connected to the oblique section. Additionally, Coulonvaux specifically discloses that the latching component is particularly desirable for connecting housing portions of air cleaner housings (Abstract), which have very similar structure to vacuum cleaners (filter and air mover). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to look to the common linkage configuration for a locking snap-type latch of Andren or Coulonvaux for specifics of the latch shown by Wolfe, providing all of the claimed structure of claims 8 and 9.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolfe et al. (9,198,552), in view of Rakocy et al. (5,440,780).
Wolfe discloses a vacuum cleaner, as discussed supra, but fails to disclose that the barrel inner space has at least one barrel inner diameter, and the at least one barrel inner diameter is greater than or equal to the opening diameter (Wolfe appears to be cylindrical). Rakocy discloses a specific tank/barrel design that has a substantially wider base to prevent tipping, with multiple barrel inner diameters that are larger than the opening diameter, wherein it is understood that the wider base will position more of the weight at the lowest point of the barrel. Therefore, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the tank of Wolfe with a design similar to Rakocy, to lower the center of gravity to resist tipping of the cleaner.
Claims 1, 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffin et al. (6,484,3515) in view of Berfield et al. (6,530,116) and/or Dorman et al. (11,291,339).
Regarding claim 1, Griffin discloses a dust suction device with a storage state, comprising: a dust collection barrel (44), comprising a barrel inner space (52), an assembling opening (at rim 54) communicating with the barrel inner space, and at least two connectors (68) disposed on an outer surface of the dust collection barrel and adjacent to the assembling opening, the assembling opening having an opening diameter; a supporting ring (lid 66) placed at the assembling opening, comprising a ring outer diameter (at 70 in Fig. 4) larger than the opening diameter, and a ring inner diameter (at inner wall 92 in Fig. 3); and a dust suction assembly (24), comprising a shell (82), and at least two connecting structures (32, as seen in Fig. 5A, for engagement with the “at least one latch assembly 26” shown in Fig. 3 as two latch assemblies, such that there would be two of the connecting structures 32) formed on an outer surface of the shell, the at least two connecting structures being provided for assembling with the at least two connectors (via the lid 66) to restrict the dust suction assembly from separating from the dust collection barrel (when the lid is secured to the barrel by latches 68), the shell having at least one shell outer diameter, the at least one shell outer diameter being smaller than the opening diameter (as seen between Figs. 5A-5B), the at least one shell outer diameter being larger than the ring inner diameter (as seen between Figs. 5A-5B), the dust suction assembly having a use state that the supporting ring is provided as a base of the dust suction assembly to stack the dust suction assembly above the dust collection barrel (Fig. 1), and would be obviously be capable of having a storage state of being at least partially placed in the barrel inner space (by removing the dust collection assembly from the lid, opening the lid and placing the lid within the barrel) wherein the supporting ring is separable from the dust collection barrel (via disconnection of latches 68) and the dust suction assembly (Figs. 5A-5B) without disassembling the dust suction assembly (as shown in Fig. 2). Although Griffin does not specifically disclose the storage state with the dust suction assembly completely stored in the barrel inner spaced, the Berfield reference shows a cross-section of what appears to be an identical suction device and shows an interior barrel space that will obviously completely fit the dust suction assembly (34) therein, when removed from the lid (30). Additionally/optionally, Dorman also teaches a similar tank type suction device, and teaches that the barrel portion may be provided in different sizes to allow a user to select between smaller sizes for easier transport and lighter weight for smaller jobs, or larger sizes when higher capacity is needed for larger jobs. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made that the inner space of the barrel, as shown by Berfield, would obviously allow the dust suction assembly to be completely stored therein and/or to optionally provide a larger barrel in place of the barrel of Griffin, as taught by Dorman for larger jobs, which would also obviously allow for the dust suction assembly to be completely stored therein.
Regarding claim 2, Griffin further discloses that the supporting ring includes an auxiliary positioning rib (any of the protruding structure on the upper side of the lid, such as latch housings 30) disposed on a side facing the dust suction assembly.
Regarding claim 5, Dudek further discloses that the shell comprises a barrel-shaped cover (55) and a bottom plate (17) matched with the barrel-shaped cover, and the bottom plate includes at least one air vent communicating with the barrel inner space (Fig. 2).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffin et al. (6,484,3515) in view of Berfield et al. (6,530,116) and/or Dorman et al. (11,291,339), or alternatively further in view of Dudek et al. (3,570,222).
Griffin further discloses that the supporting ring includes an assembly groove (edge of 70, as seen in Fig. 4) disposed on a side facing the dust collection barrel and matched with the assembling opening, and a seal member disposed in the assembly groove, in that Griffin discloses that the base 70 cooperates with the rim 54 to form an air-tight seal in Col. 4, lines 46-49, wherein the engaging rim portion 54 may be considered to be a seal member. Alternatively, Dudek discloses another similar suction device, also having a lid and rim that cooperate to form an air-tight seal, and Dudek discloses a separate rubber sealing member (31) therebetween (Col. 3, lines 47-55), which is commonly known in the art to form a seal between parts, even when not perfectly fit to another. Therefore, it further/alternatively would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the engaging portions of the lid and barrel of Griffin with a similar rubber seal member therebetween, as taught by Dudek, to ensure a proper and complete air-tight engagement to reach the desired seal, as taught by Griffin.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2 October 2025, with respect to the prior art rejections over Wolfe, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that Wolfe fails to disclose that the lid (60) can be detached from the receptacle (18) to read on the claimed invention. However, Wolfe does disclose that the lid is removable in Col. 3, lines 20-22. Therefore, the rejections over Wolfe are maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejection over Dudek have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Griffin, as discussed supra.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Each of Jones (2011/0247170) and Rolland (2019/0133392) disclose suction devices with similar structure as the 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 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 9 December 2025