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Claims 6-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 electrically connected with a static generating portion (claim 1; no connection shown), the substantially “L-shaped” static conducting portion as a whole (claim 1; shown to have plural curves, and additional structure over the L-shape suggested by the applicant in the remarks filed 5/25/2026) and the annular opening (claims 19 and 20) 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 Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “the annular opening” lacks proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim a, as well as all claims depending therefrom, and also new claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. There is no support in the original application (written or shown in the drawings) to support the new limitations that the static conducting portion is substantially L-shaped as a whole from a side view (claim 1), or that the opening is annular (claims 19 and 20). To the
PNG
media_image1.png
159
224
media_image1.png
Greyscale
contrary, while the shape of the static conducting portion does have a central portion that includes an angle somewhat close to 90 degrees, which would resemble an L-shape, the shape as a whole includes additional portions that are not part of any L-shape. As best understood by the examiner to be supported by the application as a whole, the limitation is considered to be intended to define that the static conducting portion has at least a portion that is substantially L-shaped, and will be treated as such for the sake of the current Office Action. Similarly, the opening, as shown in the drawings, defines an oblong and curving shape that does not even vaguely resemble an annular shape (“annular” commonly defined as ring-shaped and geometrically defined as the region between two concentric circles). As best understood by the examiner to be supported by the application as a whole, the limitation is considered to be intended to define the opening as having a shape with at least one curved portion, and will be treated as such for the sake of the current Office Action.
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 1, 3, 19 and 20 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 1:
As discussed supra, it is unclear how the shape of the static conducting portion that is shown in the drawings is considered to be “substantially L-shaped”.
The limitation that “{the opening is configured for to allow the handle to pass through” is unclear because it may be interpreted to suggest and action that the handle is movable within the opening. However, the opening more accurately is configured to allow the handle to be fixedly positioned within the opening and the static conducting portion.
Regarding claim 3, the amendment to replace the previously questioned “buckle” with “finger-actuated portion” remains unclear, because the portion in question, being “defined by the handle” is not capable of being “actuated” (defined as “to put into mechanical action or motion” or “to move to action”1). To the contrary, the portion in question is understood to merely form a grip that allows a user to grip and hold the vacuum cleaner. Alternatively, the only “finger-actuated” portion of the disclosed invention would be understood to be the trigger, which is not defined by the handle and is not covered (on a side or elsewhere) by the static conducting portion. Thus, it is suggested that the applicant amend the claim to replace the term “finger-actuated” with “grip” to more accurately define the disclosed structure of the current invention.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, as discussed supra, it is unclear how the shape of the opening defined in the static conducting portion that is shown in the drawings is considered to be “annular”.
Additionally regarding claim 19, the limitation “penetrate with each other” is unclear because the respective parts are not understood to penetrate anything, or one another. As best understood by the examiner, the limitation is considered to be intended to define that the button notch and opening are in communication with one another, and will be treated as such for the sake of the current Office Action.
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 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fang et al. (2021/047263) in view of Radmand (10,285,555).
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. Radmand discloses another handheld cleaner (V), having similar components and teaches that the holding portion is at least partially covered with a static conducting portion (100/300) and the static conducting portion is electrically connected with a static generating portion (via plug 122/324) 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, as taught by Radmand. Further, the embodiment of Figs. 1A-1C, 1Es and 1F of Radmand provides the static discharge portion with
PNG
media_image2.png
291
685
media_image2.png
Greyscale
at least a portion (see rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 above) being substantially L-shaped as a whole from a side view (as shown here), includes plural curved surfaces, and includes a first covering portion covering a part of a surface of the handle, the first covering portion (lower half) includes an opening (when ends are connected, as shown in Fig. 1E-1F) configured to allow the handle to pass through, and the opening is opened at a middle position of the first covering portion.
Regarding claim 2, Radmand further discloses that the static conducting portion is formed from electrostatic dissipative materials. While Radmand does not disclose any specific resistivity, the Modus publication (provided as extrinsic evidence) teaches that static/electrostatic dissipative materials are engineered to have electrical resistance between 10⁶ to 10⁹ ohms that allow electrical charges to flow slowly and in a controlled manner to ground. Therefore, the electrostatic dissipative materials taught by Radmand would obviously include a similar range of electrical resistance, which overlaps the claimed range and makes the claimed range obvious (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 “finger actuated” (grip) portion is defined by the handle, the supporting bracket, the body and the base collectively (the “finger actuated” will be considered to effectively define all portions of the handle, the supporting bracket, the body and the base). Further, Radmand discloses that the static conducting portion includes a second covering portion (upper half/portion) covering a side of the finger-actuated portion adjacent to the body, the first covering portion and the second covering portion are connected to each other.
Regarding claim 4, Radmand 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 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 to the body is located on a side of the handle adjacent to the supporting bracket (and the side away from the supporting bracket).
Regarding claim 20, Radmand further discloses that the opening is a curved (having curves along external edges at the top and bottom and defined by curved internal surface when wrapped around the handle as shown in Figs. 1E-1F) opening (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 above).
Claims 5 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fang et al. (2021/047263) in view of Radmand (10,285,555) 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 adjacent to the supporting bracket, wherein the static conducting portion covering a majority of the handle, as taught by Radmand defines a button notch (110) to cover most of the handle, while still allowing for the location of the switch button of Fang. However, Fang and Radmand 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.
Regarding claim 19, Radmand further discloses the button notch (110) and the curved (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 above) opening of the first covering portion for the handle to pass through penetrate with each other (are in communication with one another; effectively connected via the internal opening).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 25 May 2026, with respect to all previous rejections 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 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b), new objections to the drawings and new rejections under 35 U.S.C 103, as discussed above.
The amendments have also overcome the objections to the drawings other than the lack of showing that the static conducting portion being electrically connected with a static generating portion. While the amendments do show physical connection, there is no structure shown to form the electrical connection as claimed.
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.
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 11 August 2026
1 “Actuate.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/actuate. Accessed 11 Aug. 2026.
Prosecution Insights