DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claims 6-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 22 January 2026. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no undue burden to examine all inventions. This is not found persuasive because each of the alternative inventions relate to completely different components of the claimed invention, which would require searches in a wide range of classification areas.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 static conducting portion being connected with a static generating portion (claim 1; no connection shown) and the “S-shaped” static conducting portion (claim 3; shown to have plural curves, but not shaped like an S) 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 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 3-5 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 3:
It is unclear what structure is intended to be the claimed “buckle portion”. The specification does not disclose any structure from the drawings as the “buckle portion”, but does discloses two different “buckles”, neither of which are understood to be defined by the handle, supporting bracket and the base collectively. Thus, it is unclear what is intended as the “buckle portion”.
As noted above, the shape shown for the static conducting portion is not understood to be “S-shaped”, thus the claim is unclear due to a lack of corresponding structure between the drawings and the written specification and claims. As best understood by the examiner in view of the drawings, the limitation is only considered to be supported in that the static conducting portion includes plural curved surfaces, and will be treated as such for the sake of the current Office Action.
Regarding claims 3-5, each claim includes the limitation that at least one component is “close to” another component, which is unclear because “close” is a relative term, wherein the handheld cleaner being relatively small could read on all components being close to one another. It is suggested that the applicant amend the claims to more accurately define the relative locations, for example, by defining the second covering portion covering a side of the buckle portion adjacent to the body (claim 3), the end of the first covering portion that is closest to the base (claim 4).
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fang et al. (2021/047263) in view of Xing et al. (CN 109044191 A).
Fang discloses a handheld vacuum cleaner, comprising: a housing, comprising a body (1), a holding portion (handle) and a base (housing batteries therein), the holding portion being arranged between the body and the base, the body comprising an accommodating groove (best seen in Fig. 5) and an air inlet channel (at 3), a suction generating unit (4), at least partially housed in the accommodating groove (best seen in Fig. 3) and configured to generate airflow along the air inlet channel, a dirt collection unit (2), at least partially housed in the accommodating groove (best seen in Fig. 3), detachably mounted on the suction generating unit and configured to separate dirt and dust from the airflow, and a battery pack (on base), mounted on the base and configured to supply power to the suction generating unit. However Fang fails to disclose that the holding portion is at least partially covered with a static conducting portion. Xing discloses another handheld cleaner, having similar components and teaches that the holding portion is at least partially covered with a static conducting portion (31) and the static conducting portion is electrically connected with a static generating portion (circuit board) of the handheld vacuum cleaner, which will prevent damage to the cleaner or pain/injury to a user that may otherwise occur from static electricity discharge by regularly discharging any built up charge through a user’s hand and body. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to similarly at least partially cover the holding portion of Fang with a static conducting portion and the static conducting portion is electrically connected with a static generating portion of the handheld vacuum cleaner.
Regarding claim 2, Xing further discloses that the static conducting portion (3/31) is a conductive non-metallic material with a resistivity of 103-1012 Ω (on page 3 of the English language translation), wherein the overlapping range disclosed by Xing makes obvious the claimed range (see MPEP 2144.05, section I).
Regarding claim 3, Fang further discloses that the holding portion includes a handle (shown at 1) and a supporting bracket (in front of handle), and a buckle portion is defined by the handle, the supporting bracket, the body and the base collectively (the “buckle portion” will be considered to effectively define all portions of the handle, the supporting bracket, the body and the base). Further, Xing discloses that the static conducting portion covers a substantial portion of the handle, shown in Fig. 2 to extend from a base to the top of the handle, wherein when applied to the cleaner of Fang, a corresponding portion of the handle that is covered by the static conducting portion, will effectively include multiple curved sections to cover the curved exterior portions of the handle and in cross-section (as seen in Fig. 5 of Xing), to the extent that the static conducting portion is “S-shaped as a whole” in at least an equivalent manner to the disclosed invention, and the static conducting portion includes a first covering portion covering a part of a surface of the handle (as taught by Xing) and a second covering portion covering a side of the buckle portion adjacent/close to the body (the upper end of the handle is considered to be part of the buckle portion, based on the claim limitations, such that the covering on the upper end of the handle will read on the second covering portion covering a side of the buckle portion adjacent/close to the body), the first covering portion and the second covering portion are connected with each other (being a unitary part of the static conducting portion).
Regarding claim 4, Xing further discloses that the static conducting portion extends around the handle at the upper and lower ends, such that an end of the first covering portion adjacent/close to the base is located on a side of the handle away from the supporting bracket (and closer to the supporting bracket), and an end of the first covering portion adjacent/close to the body is located on a side of the handle closest to the supporting bracket (and the side away from the supporting bracket).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fang et al. (2021/047263) in view of Xing et al. (CN 109044191 A) as applied to claims 1-4, and further in view of Dimbylow (2017/0079489).
Regarding claim 5, Fang further discloses that a switch button (“trigger button” shown on handle) is arranged on the side of the handle closest to the supporting bracket, wherein the static conducting portion covering a majority of the handle, as taught by Xing, when applied to Fang, will obviously define some form of button notch to cover most of the handle, while still allowing for the location of the switch button of Fang. However, Fang and Xing both fail to disclose a lug boss on the handle. Dimbylow discloses another similar handheld cleaner, also having a trigger type switch button (16), and comprising a trigger guard (17) in the form of a lug boss, adjacent to the trigger, wherein such a guard is known in the art to prevent accidental engagement to the trigger, and Dimbylow also teaches that the trigger guard will assist in supporting the cleaner with the user’s fingers that are not engaging the trigger (paragraph 40). Therefore, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a similar trigger guard in the form of a lug boss, to the handle of Fang, as taught by Dimbylow, to protect the trigger from accidental engagement and assist in supporting the cleaner. Thus, the button notch, as discussed supra, that to cover most of the handle but not the trigger, will effectively be located at a position corresponding to the lug boss (immediately below the trigger) to cover as much of the handle as possible, without interfering with the function of the trigger switch button.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Each of Machida et al. (11,311,164), Prach (6,552,891)Schliemann et al. (CN 1821579 B), Malmqvist et al. (WO 2016/138961) and Internet Publication to Miele disclose devices having similar structure to the claimed invention.
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 17 February 2026