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 .
Election/Restrictions
1. Applicant's election with traverse of Species I in the reply filed on 1/9/2026 is acknowledged.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that the present invention is based on a single inventive concept, with each variation only introducing minor structural modifications.
This is not found persuasive because:
Although Applicant argues Species I represents the most fundamental embodiment, Species II only omits the second radial diffuser, Species III only differs in a structural variation in geometry, Species IV only differs in that it includes axial diffuser blades, Species V only differs in including a radial blade and an axial blade, Species VI only differs in including first and second axial blades, Species VII only differs in including a radial blade and first and second axial blades, and that the categorization of seven mutually exclusive species do not reflect substantial distinctions (see remarks filed 1/9/2026), the arguments are not found persuasive because the claims to the different species recite the mutually exclusive characteristics. Specifically, claims 2-5 currently recite the features of a radiating blade, an axial blade, a first axial diffuser and a second axial diffuser, a first axial blade and a second axial blade. Additionally, these species and mutually exclusive characteristics are not obvious variants of each other as shown by Nam et al. (US PGPUB 20180333025), hereinafter Nam, (as later relied upon as the prior art reference), wherein Nam teaches a diffuser which does not include radial and axial blades (fig. 8). Moreover, these species are distinct because specific structural features of the respective species will likely need to be incorporated throughout prosecution in attempt to overcome the prior art rejections of record. Additionally, the distinctness of species is further evidenced by the increased search burden between species, wherein the mutually exclusive characteristics of each respective species will require specific additional search queries drawn towards the specific mutually exclusive characteristic, wherein the prior art applicable to one species would not likely be applicable to another species.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 2-5 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 1/9/2026.
Accordingly, claims 1 and 6-15 have been examined herein.
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 8/21/2023, 1/23/2024, and 11/19/2025 were filed prior to the mailing date of this action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
4. Claims 8 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 8, “wherein the axial diffuser is configured to discharge air the air” should read “wherein the axial diffuser is configured to discharge air, the air” to provide increased clarity
Regarding claim 11, “discharge air toward one side of the impeller for intake of air” should read “discharge air toward one side of the impeller, [[for intake of]] which intakes air”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
Claim 9 is 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 9, the claim language recites “the motor is positioned to a side of the impeller opposite to the diffuser device for intake of air”. However, it is not precisely clear what is required by this language. Specifically, it is not precisely clear what the phrase “for intake of air” is intended to be with respect to. As best understood by the examiner, the limitation is attempting to claim the configuration of the impeller being between the motor and the diffuser device. This is clearly portrayed with the language of “wherein the motor is positioned to a side of the impeller opposite to the diffuser device”. However, it is not clear what the phrase “for intake of air” is meant to reference. Specifically, it is not clear if the motor is meant to intake air (which causes confusion because the motor itself doesn’t intake air) or if the diffuser device is meant to intake air (which causes confusion because the impeller intakes air before the diffuser device). Overall, the language “for intake of air” causes confusion as it is not precisely clear as to what this language is with respect to. For purposes of examination, as best understood by the examiner, the language will be interpreted as “the motor is positioned to a side of the impeller opposite to the diffuser device [[for intake of air]]”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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, 6 and 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nam et al. (US PGPUB 20180333025), hereinafter Nam.
Regarding claim 1, Nam teaches a cleaner (fig. 1, 4 and 8) comprising:
a body (fig. 1, main body 2) including a body exhaust vent (air exits 212);
a filter installable inside the body (fig. 8, filter 246); and
a fan motor device (fig. 4) including:
an impeller (impeller 232) configured to be rotatable to generate a suction force inside the body [0074],
a motor (suction motor 230) configured to provide power to rotate the impeller [0074], and
a diffuser device (Nam teaches air passes through the suction motor then is discharged to an exhaust channel 216 after flowing in the suction motor by the impeller [0125]. The air discharged into the exhaust channel 216 passes through the filter 246 and the is discharged to the outside through the air exits [0126]) including:
a radiating diffuser extending in a radial direction from a rotational axis of the impeller (see annotated fig. 8 below), and
an axial diffuser extending from the radiating diffuser (see annotated fig. 8 below),
PNG
media_image1.png
808
953
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the fan motor device is configured so that, with the filter installed inside the body (fig. 8),
rotation of the impeller by the power provided by the motor causes air to pass through the fan motor device and be discharged from the impeller [0125-0126], and then guided by the radiating diffuser in the radial direction from the rotational axis of the impeller (fig. 8, [0125-0126]), and then guided by the axial diffuser to the filter to be filtered (fig. 8, [0125-0126]), and then discharged through the body exhaust vent (fig. 8, [0125-0126]).
Regarding claim 6, Nam teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Nam teaches wherein the radiating diffuser includes a first radiating diffuser extending in a direction in which the impeller discharges air (fig. 8, wherein the radiating diffuser is interpreted as the first radiating diffuser and it extends in a direction in which the impeller discharges air. The claim language does not specify how the first radiating diffuser extends in the direction of discharged air, only that it extends in the direction. Therefore, the first radiating diffuser, as interpreted above, extends in the direction in which the impeller discharges air).
Regarding claim 8, Nam teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Nam teaches wherein the axial diffuser is configured to discharge air (fig. 8, [0125-0126]) the air guided by the axial diffuser in a direction toward the filter (fig. 8, filter 246) with the filter installed inside the body (fig. 8).
Regarding claim 9, Nam teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Nam teaches wherein the motor is positioned to a side of the impeller opposite to the diffuser device for intake of air (see annotated fig. 8 below, wherein the indicated portion of the motor is positioned to a side of the impeller opposite to the indicated portion of the diffuser device. As best understood by the examiner, in view of the above 35 USC 112(b) rejection, the prior art teaches the claimed limitation).
PNG
media_image2.png
827
859
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Nam teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Nam teaches wherein with the filter (filter 246) installed inside the body, the filter surrounds the fan motor device in a circumferential direction with respect to the rotational axis of the impeller (fig. 6-8, the filter 246 surrounds the fan motor device in the circumferential direction with respect to the rotational axis of the impeller).
Regarding claim 11, Nam teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Nam teaches wherein the diffuser device is configured to discharge air toward one side of the impeller for intake of air (fig. 8, wherein the axial diffuser 216 discharges air towards the side of the impeller which intakes air).
Regarding claim 12, Nam teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Nam teaches wherein the diffuser device includes:
an outlet to discharge the air guided by the axial diffuser, the outlet being positioned adjacent to a first side of the filter with the filter installed inside the body (see annotated fig. 8 below), and
the body exhaust vent is positioned adjacent to a second side of the filter opposite to the first side of the filter with the filter installed inside the body (see annotated fig. 8 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
806
896
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Nam teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Nam teaches wherein the diffuser device includes:
an outlet to discharge the air guided by the axial diffuser (see annotated fig. 8 above), and
the filter extends from the outlet of the diffuser device to the body exhaust vent with the filter installed inside the body (see annotated fig. 8 above).
Regarding claim 14, Nam teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Nam teaches wherein the filter is a high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter [0126].
Regarding claim 15, Nam teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Nam teaches wherein the filter is detachable from the body [0118].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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 Nam et al. (US PGPUB 20180333025), hereinafter Nam, in view of Adachi et al. (US PGPUB 20200237166), hereinafter Adachi.
Regarding claim 7, Nam teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 6. Nam does not explicitly teach wherein the radiating diffuser includes a second radiating diffuser extending from the first radiating diffuser in a direction that is perpendicular to the rotational axis of the impeller.
However, Adachi teaches a electric vacuum cleaner,
wherein the radiating diffuser includes a first radiating diffuser extending in a direction in which the impeller discharges air (see annotated fig. 1 below, with impeller 6),
wherein the radiating diffuser includes a second radiating diffuser extending from the first radiating diffuser in a direction that is perpendicular to the rotational axis of the impeller (see annotated fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
901
851
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nam to incorporate the teachings of Adachi to provide wherein the radiating diffuser includes a second radiating diffuser extending from the first radiating diffuser in a direction that is perpendicular to the rotational axis of the impeller. Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate the teachings of Adachi such that the radiating diffuser (of Nam) includes a first radiating diffuser and a second radiating diffuser extending from the first radiating diffuser (as taught by Adachi), wherein the second radiating diffuser extends in a direction that is perpendicular to the rotational axis of the impeller (as taught by Adachi). Doing so would have been a simple substitution (MPEP 2143) of one known radial diffuser configuration for another known radial diffuser configuration to obtain the predictable results of radially diffusing the air away from the impeller. Additionally, doing so would continue to allow the device to function as intended and provide airflow through the cleaner.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Potts et al. (US Patent 6003200) teaches a vacuum cleaner with a radial diffuser similar to the claimed invention (fig. 4)
Park et al. (US PGPUB 20160037984) teaches a radial and axial diffuser path similar to the claimed invention (fig. 5)
Conrad et al. (US PGPUB 20190008346) teaches a radial flow path from the motor to an exhaust vent similar to the claimed invention (fig. 10)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A GUMP whose telephone number is (571)272-2172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9:00-5:30.
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, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. 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.
/MICHAEL A GUMP/Examiner, Art Unit 3723