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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/28/2026 has been entered.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 4/19/2021. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the JP10-2021-0050419 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55, and therefore the application will not be afforded the priority date of 4/19/2021 until the certified copy is filed.
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 1-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR102080013B1), provided by Applicant in IDS filed 7/11/2023 and an English translation provided as a PDF with this action and hereinafter referred to as Lee, in view of Schook (WO2009104959A1), provided by Applicant in IDS filed 7/11/2023.
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a multi-cyclone dust collector comprising: a primary cyclone separator (Fig. 2 element 10) configured to separate waste primarily from introduced waste-containing air (0036); and a secondary cyclone separator (Fig. 7 elements M1 and M2, 0064) installed inside the primary cyclone separator (Fig. 2), the secondary cyclone separator configured to separate dust from air discharged from the primary cyclone separator (0042), wherein the secondary cyclone separator comprises: a secondary cyclone (Fig. 4 element 20) provided with at least two inlet holes (Fig. 4 elements 30, 0068) through which air is introduced (0060) and an outlet hole through which the introduced air is discharged (see annotated Fig. 7 below, where the outlet hole matches Applicant's interpretation of outlet hole based on element 25 shown in Fig. 6 of Applicant's drawings), and an upper cover (Fig. 7 element 14) provided to cover an upper end of the secondary cyclone (Fig. 2, 0064) and comprising an outlet pipe (Fig. 7 element 25a) inserted into the outlet hole to discharge the air (Fig. 7, 0062-0064, where the outlet pipe (25a) is capable of discharging the air), wherein the at least two inlet holes are formed through a side surface (Fig. 4, the surface of element 22 which the at least two inlet holes are formed through) of the secondary cyclone below the plane where the upper cover meets a portion of the side surface (Figs. 4 and 6 show this limitation).
Lee fails to disclose the upper cover further comprises a plurality of flow guides, an entirety of each flow guide of the plurality of flow guides is disposed between adjacent inlet holes to minimize airflow interference between the adjacent inlet holes and provided on an outer surface of the outlet pipe to correspond to the at least two inlet holes.
Schook is also concerned with a multi-cyclone dust collector and teaches the upper cover (Fig. 1 elements 10 and 12 and guide plate shown in annotated Fig. 1 below) further comprises a plurality of flow guides (Fig. 1 elements 10), an entirety of each flow guide of the plurality of flow guides is disposed between adjacent inlet holes to minimize airflow interference between the adjacent inlet holes to minimize airflow interference between the adjacent inlet holes (see annotated Fig. 1 below, where the space between the guide plate, each individual flow guide (10), and the circumferential outer wall of the second cyclone defines the inlet holes (Fig. 1 elements 8) which means that the entirety of each flow guide of the plurality of flow guides (10) are disposed between adjacent inlet holes (since there is only a single flow guide (10) which is used for guiding the air flow per inlet hole (8)) which minimizes airflow interference between the adjacent inlet holes) and provided on an outer surface of the outlet pipe (Fig. 1, where element 12 corresponds to an outlet pipe) to correspond to the at least two inlet holes (page 8 lines 16-18, where the plurality of flow guides (10) "connect" to the inlet holes (8) corresponds to the plurality of flow guides correspond to the at least two inlet holes). It 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 to modify the multi-cyclone dust collector of Lee to have the upper cover comprise a plurality of flow guides disposed between adjacent inlet holes to minimize airflow interference between the adjacent inlet holes and provided on an outer surface of the outlet pipe to correspond to the at least two inlet holes, as taught by Schook, because Schook teaches that the addition of "curved guides (also indicated as ‘guiding vanes’) result in a more symmetrical and thereby more stable flow profile in the separating space, which results in a more efficient separation" (page 2 lines 21-23).
PNG
media_image1.png
860
604
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
655
708
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Lee, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the at least two inlet holes are provided at an upper end of an outer circumferential surface of a body of the secondary cyclone (Lee, Fig. 4 element 21 corresponds to a body of the secondary cyclone and the outer circumferential surface of element 22 corresponds to an upper end of an outer circumferential surface of a body of the secondary cyclone, 0071) to protrude outward from the body (Lee, 0071), and wherein the plurality of flow guides is provided at positions higher than a lower end of the outlet pipe to correspond to the at least two inlet holes (Schook, see annotated Fig. 1 above).
Regarding claim 3, Lee, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses each of the plurality of flow guides comprises a guide surface extending toward the lower end of the outlet pipe to guide air introduced into each of the at least two inlet holes to be moved to the lower end of the outlet pipe (Schook, see annotated Fig. 1' below, where the guide surface is capable of guiding air introduced into each of the at least two inlet holes to be moved to the lower end of the outlet pipe).
PNG
media_image3.png
655
489
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Lee, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the at least two inlet holes are formed in a tangential direction with respect to an outer circumferential surface of each of a plurality of secondary cyclones (Lee, Fig. 4, 0046), and wherein one of the plurality of flow guides comprises a guide surface provided to guide air introduced into one of the at least two inlet holes (Schook, see annotated Fig. 1' above, where the guide surface is capable of guiding air introduced into one of the at least two inlet holes).
Regarding claim 5, Lee, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 4, as described above, and further discloses each of the at least two inlet holes comprises: an opening (Lee, Fig. 4 element 35) formed on each of bodies of the plurality of secondary cyclones (Lee, Fig. 4, 0071), and an inlet duct (Lee, Fig. 4, element 31) formed to surround the opening to allow air to flow in a tangential direction with respect to an outer circumferential surface of a body of the secondary cyclone (Lee, Fig. 4 element 21 corresponds to a body of the secondary cyclone and the outer circumferential surface of element 22 corresponds to an outer circumferential surface of a body of the secondary cyclone, 0071-0072), and wherein the guide surface is provided to face the opening of the corresponding inlet hole (Schook, see annotated Fig. 1' above, where the vertical portion of the guide surface faces the opening of the corresponding inlet hole as the inlet hole is in the horizontal direction relative to the vertical portion of the guide surface).
Regarding claim 6, Lee, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 5, as described above, and further discloses the guide surface extends downward from one end thereof to the other end, and wherein the guide surface is formed to be away from the corresponding inlet hole from the one end toward the other end (Schook, see annotated Fig. 1' above, where the guide surface extends in a downward direction from the one end toward the other end, which is away from the corresponding inlet hole).
Regarding claim 7, Lee, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 6, as described above, and further discloses the guide surface has a spiral shape along a circumference of the outlet pipe (Schook, see annotated Fig. 1' above).
Regarding claim 8, Lee, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 6, as described above, and further discloses the guide surface is provided to be inclined with respect to the tangential direction (Schook, see annotated Fig. 1' above, where a least a portion of the guide surface is inclined with respect to the tangential direction (i.e. horizontal direction)).
Regarding claim 9, Lee, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 6, as described above, and further discloses the one of the plurality of flow guides comprises a blocking surface provided on a side opposite to the guide surface facing one inlet hole to block air introduced from an inlet hole adjacent to the one inlet hole from being moved toward the one inlet hole (Schook, see annotated Fig. 1' above, where the surface opposite the guide surface corresponds to a blocking surface which faces one inlet hole and is capable of blocking air introduced from an inlet hole adjacent to the one inlet hole from being moved toward the one inlet hole).
Regarding claim 10, Lee, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 9, as described above, and further discloses the blocking surface extends from one end thereof to the other end in a direction parallel to an extending direction of the outlet pipe (Schook, see annotated Fig. 1' above, where the blocking surface extends from one end thereof to the other end in a vertical direction (i.e. there is a vertical component to the blocking surface and therefore the blocking surface extends in the vertical direction), and where the outlet pipe also extends in the vertical direction, and therefore the blocking surface extends from one end thereof to the other end in a direction parallel to an extending direction of the outlet pipe).
Regarding claim 11, Lee, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 10, as described above, and further discloses the other end of the guide surface and the other end of the blocking surface are in contact with each other (Schook, see annotated Fig. 1' above, where examiner finds that the edge surface would have some amount of rounding, as no edge is perfectly straight, and examiner finds that the guide surface and the blocking surface contact each other at the edge surface, which is the same type of contact as shown in at least Applicant's Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 12, Lee, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 11, as described above, and further discloses the one of the plurality of flow guides further comprises a cover surface provided to cover a space between the guide surface and the blocking surface (Schook, see annotated Fig. 1' above), and wherein the guide surface, the blocking surface and the cover surface are integrally formed (Schook, see annotated Fig. 1' above).
Regarding claim 13, Lee, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses a plurality of secondary cyclones (Lee, Fig. 7, where a plurality of the secondary cyclone (20) is shown, 0064) is provided, and wherein the upper cover is provided to cover upper portions of the plurality of secondary cyclones (Fig. 2, 0064) and comprising a plurality of outlet pipes (Lee, Fig. 7, where a plurality of the outlet pipe (25a) is shown, 0064) corresponding to the plurality of secondary cyclones (Lee, Fig. 7, 0064).
Regarding claim 15, Lee discloses a vacuum cleaner comprising: a suction nozzle (Fig. 11 element 170); a multi-cyclone dust collector (Fig. 11 element 1) connected to the suction nozzle (Fig. 11, 0106-0109); and a suction motor (Fig. 12 element 120) connected to the multi-cyclone dust collector (Fig. 12, 0103), the suction motor configured to generate a suction force (0102), wherein the multi-cyclone dust collector comprising: a primary cyclone separator (Fig. 2 element 10) provided to separate waste primarily from introduced waste-containing air (0036), and a secondary cyclone separator (Fig. 7 elements M1 and M2, 0064) installed inside the primary cyclone separator (Fig. 2) to separate dust from air discharged from the primary cyclone separator (0042), wherein the secondary cyclone separator comprises: a secondary cyclone (Fig. 4 element 20) provided with at least two inlet holes (Fig. 4 elements 30, 0068) through which air is introduced (0060) and an outlet hole through which the introduced air is discharged (see annotated Fig. 7 above, where the outlet hole matches Applicant's interpretation of outlet hole based on element 25 shown in Fig. 6 of Applicant's drawings), and an upper cover (Fig. 7 element 14) provided to cover an upper end of the secondary cyclone (Fig. 2, 0064) and comprising an outlet pipe (Fig. 7 element 25a) inserted into the outlet hole to discharge the air (Fig. 7, 0062-0064, where the outlet pipe (25a) is capable of discharging the air), wherein the at least two inlet holes are formed through a side surface (Fig. 4, the surface of element 22 which the at least two inlet holes are formed through) of the secondary cyclone below the plane where the upper cover meets a portion of the side surface (Figs. 4 and 6 show this limitation).
Lee fails to disclose the upper cover further comprises a plurality of flow guides disposed between adjacent inlet holes to minimize airflow interference between the adjacent inlet holes and provided on an outer surface of the outlet pipe to correspond to the at least two inlet holes.
Schook is also concerned with a multi-cyclone dust collector and teaches the upper cover (Fig. 1 elements 10 and 12 and guide plate shown in annotated Fig. 1 above) further comprises a plurality of flow guides (Fig. 1 elements 10) disposed between adjacent inlet holes to minimize airflow interference between the adjacent inlet holes (see annotated Fig. 1 above, where the space between the guide plate, each individual flow guide (10), and the circumferential outer wall of the second cyclone defines the inlet holes (Fig. 1 elements 8) which means that the entirety of each glow guide of the plurality of flow guides (10) are disposed between adjacent inlet holes (since there is only a single flow guide (10) which is used for guiding the air flow per inlet hole (8)) which minimizes airflow interference between the adjacent inlet holes) and provided on an outer surface of the outlet pipe (Fig. 1, where element 12 corresponds to an outlet pipe) to correspond to the at least two inlet holes (page 8 lines 16-18, where the plurality of flow guides (10) "connect" to the inlet holes (8) corresponds to the plurality of flow guides correspond to the at least two inlet holes). It 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 to modify the vacuum cleaner of Lee to have the upper cover comprise a plurality of flow guides disposed between adjacent inlet holes to minimize airflow interference between the adjacent inlet holes and provided on an outer surface of the outlet pipe to correspond to the at least two inlet holes, as taught by Schook, because Schook teaches that the addition of "curved guides (also indicated as ‘guiding vanes’) result in a more symmetrical and thereby more stable flow profile in the separating space, which results in a more efficient separation" (page 2 lines 21-23).
Claimed Subject Matter
Claim 14 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Regarding claim 14, the closest arts of record, Lee et al. (KR102080013B1) and Schook (WO2009104959A1), fail to disclose, suggest, or make obvious in combination with the additional elements or each respective claim the following features: the central cyclone has four inlet holes and each of the plurality of secondary cyclones has three inlet holes, and examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to adjust the amount of inlet holes on only the central cyclone to have four inlet holes without improper hindsight.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/1/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Applicant argues that the combination of Lee and Schook fails to disclose “an entirety of each flow guide of the plurality of flow guides is disposed between adjacent inlet holes” because Schook only teaches a single inlet hole (8). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner maintains the interpretation presented in the final rejection filed 2/5/2026 that “the space between the guide plate, each individual flow guide (10), and the circumferential outer wall of the second cyclone defines the inlet holes (Fig. 1 elements 8)”. Examiner finds that Applicant has not addressed why this interpretation is improper and therefore examiner finds this argument unpersuasive.
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Applicant argues that the combination of Lee and Schook fails to disclose “the at least two inlet holes are formed through a side surface of the secondary cyclone below the plane where the upper cover meets a portion of the side surface” because “even if Lee discloses the feature, then combining Schook to Lee, would change the principle of operation of Lee, as the alleged inlet holes 8 of Schook have an opening along the entirety of the top edge of the side surface of the second cyclone, not on the side surface. (See MPEP 2143.01).”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds that Lee is being modified by Schook to simply bring in the structure of the plurality of flow guides between adjacent inlet holes, not to bring in the relative placement of inlet holes with respect to the side surface of the second cyclone, and therefore examiner finds this argument unpersuasive.
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