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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/7/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-12 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. Claim 1 recites “the plurality of guide ribs are configured to prevent rubbish from flowing into the dust collecting chamber while allowing a flow of air into the dust collecting chamber”. Examiner finds that this limitation is new matter. Examiner finds that paragraph 0135 of Applicant’s specification is clear that the “guide rib 130 may guide air introduced into the first dust collecting chamber” and “the guide rib 130 may allow rubbish, which is contained in the air flowing into the first dust collecting chamber 81, to be sequentially accumulated from the one side 81b inside the first dust collecting chamber 81” and Fig. 18 of Applicant’s drawings also shows rubbish being accumulated inside of the dust collecting chamber. Therefore, examiner finds that Applicant does not have support for the plurality of guide ribs being configured to prevent rubbish from entering the first dust collecting chamber.
Claims 3-12 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claimed Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 3-12 are considered to read over the prior art of record because the prior art of record does not teach or suggest the claimed combination of features including “the plurality of guide ribs are configured to prevent rubbish from flowing into the dust collecting chamber while allowing a flow of air into the dust collecting chamber” as Jin et al. (KR202000107756A), provided as a PDF in office action filed 10/10/2025, teaches that the plurality of guide ribs are located entirely within the dust collecting chamber and therefore the plurality of guide ribs would be unable to prevent rubbish from flowing into (i.e. entering) the dust collecting chamber, and examiner does not find it obvious to rearrange the position of the plurality of guide ribs relative to the dust collecting chamber as the cleaner would no longer function as intended. However, this claim cannot be considered "allowable" at this time due to the rejection(s) under U.S.C. 112(a) set forth in this Office Action (see the 112(a) rejection set forth above). Therefore upon the claims being rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) set forth in this Office Action, further consideration of this claim with respect to the prior art will be necessary.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 5/7/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 3-12 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Jin et al. (KR20200107756A) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the 112(b) rejection should be dropped as the claims now provide further clarification. While examiner agrees that claim 1 is no longer indefinite, examiner finds that with the claim now being clear as to what Applicant is intending to claim, the claim is now rejected under 112(a) as including new matter. See the rejection under 112(a) above.
Applicant argues that Jin fails to disclose “the curved member includes a curved portion connecting the lower portion of the second lateral portion to the upper portion of the second lateral portion”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds that updated annotated Figs. 14’ and 14’’ below as well as the new annotated Fig. 14’’’’ below show that Jin does disclose this limitation, and therefore examiner finds this argument to be unpersuasive.
Examiner notes that while Jin does fail to disclose that the lower portion is wider than the upper portion, examiner maintains that Applicant’s specification is devoid of discussing this limitation and therefore the lower portion being wider than the upper portion lacks criticality and the rejection made pursuant MPEP 2144.04-IV-B in the Final Rejection filed 3/16/2026 is maintained.
PNG
media_image1.png
786
280
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
786
310
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
786
479
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights