DETAILED ACTION Election /Restrictions This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species (Only species in bold are generic to the pending claims; see further discussion below at 2. ) : Species A, represented by Figures 1-18, 28-30b, 54-58, 60-62 and 65-67, directed to a surface cleaner device. Species B, represented by Figure 19, directed to a surface cleaner device. Species C, represented by Figures 20-24, directed to a collection bin strap. Species D, represented by Figures 25-27, directed to a collection bin strap. Species E, represented by Figures 31a-32b, directed to a surface cleaner device. Species F, represented by Figures 33a-34b, directed to a surface cleaner device. Species G, represented by Figures 35a-36b, directed to a surface cleaner device. Species H, represented by Figures 37-45, directed to a surface cleaner device. Species I, represented by Figured 46a-46b, directed to a surface cleaner device. Species J, represented by Figures 47a-47b, directed to a surface cleaner device. Species K, represented by Figures 48a-48b, directed to a surface cleaner device. Species L, represented by Figures 49-52, directed to a cyclone bin. Species M, represented by Figure 53, directed to a cyclone bin. Species N, represented by Figure 59, directed to a surface cleaner device. Species O, represented by Figures 63-64, directed to a surface cleaner device. Species P, represented by Figures 68-69, directed to a surface cleaner device. Species Q, represented by Figure 70-71, directed to a surface cleaner device. Species R, represented by Figure 72, directed to a switching circuit. Species S, represented by Figures 73a-73b, directed to a switching circuit. Species T, represented by Figure 74, directed to a switching circuit. Species U, represented by Figure 75a, directed to a connecting circuit. Species V, represented by Figure 75b, directed to a connecting circuit. Species W, represented by Figures 76-77, directed to a cleaning head. Species X, represented by Figures 78a-78b, directed to a locking mechanism. Species Y, represented by Figures 79a-79b, directed to a locking mechanism. Species Z, represented by Figure 80a-80b, directed to a locking mechanism. Species AA, represented by Figure 81, directed to a surface cleaner device. Species BB, represented by Figure 82, directed to an information system. The species are independent or distinct because each species represents materially different structure from one another that is not known to be obvious variations for each species. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record. Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, no claims are considered to be generic top all species. There is a search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply: the extensive number of separate embodiments for the device as a whole, as well as multiple embodiments for several different components provides a large number of potential combinations that would require extensive search and consideration for each possible combination. Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species , including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election. The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species. Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species. Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141. The current claims are considered to be generic to each of species A (although Fig. 5 does not appear to include the bendable wand), H (only shown in Fig. 37), N (Subspecies to non-extensible tube), O and AA . Therefore, one of these species mush be elected, along with the response to the current Office Action. Because there are no pending claims that differentiate between the generic species, the claims were also examined for patentability relative to the prior art. However, a single species must be elected in response to this Office Action due to the number of potential species and relative to future examination . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 18 March and 24 December 2024 have been considered by the examiner. However, the examiner notes that the IDS documents include an extensive number of references, many/most of which have little to no relevance to the specifics of the claimed invention of the current application. Although the examiner has reviewed the applicant’s submitted references, the examiner does request that the applicant submit additional disclosure of any particularly relevant references to the current claimed invention for more focused review by the examiner . 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim 26 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. The limitation “a downstream end of the flexible air flow conduit” is unclear, because it does not clearly define the “downstream end”, wherein the common definition in the art for a downstream end would be the end of the flexible air flow conduit (disclosed in claim 25 to be downstream of the bendable wand, thus referring to hose 7) that connects to the portable surface cleaning unit (to be referred to hereinafter as PSC). However, based on the common definition, the claim limitation contradicts the drawings , because the upper wand portion is shown with an upper end that is in air flow communication with a n upstream end of the flexible air flow conduit . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 10 3 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. Claim s 24-30, 32 and 34-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrad (8,875,340) in view of Rosenzweig (8,296,047; to be referred to hereinafter as RZ) . Regarding claim 24, both of Conrad and Lee disclose a n upright surface cleaning apparatus comprising:(b) a surface cleaning head (106 of Conrad/306 of Lee) having a dirty air inlet; (c) an upper section moveably mounted to the surface cleaning head between a storage position and a floor cleaning position, the upper section comprises a wand (114, 116 of Conrad/350 of Lee) and a portable surface cleaning unit (110/300) ; (d) the wand comprises an upper wand portion (116/350a) and a lower wand portion (114/350b) , and, (e) the portable surface cleaning unit comprises a suction motor, an air treatment member and a carry handle (shown but not numbered for Conrad; any portion of hose 309 or connecting portion to the PSC of Lee capable of functioning as a carry handle and/or obvious in the art for nearly all canister style cleaners, as used in Fig. 7, to have some form of handle for a user to handle the PSC when separated) , wherein the lower wand portion is removably connectable to the surface cleaning head whereby, in operation with the lower wand portion mounted to the surface cleaning head, the lower wand portion is in air flow communication with the surface cleaning head, wherein the portable surface cleaning unit is removably mountable to the lower wand portion and the portable surface cleaning unit is removable from the lower wand portion while the lower wand portion remains in air flow communication with the surface cleaning head (Fig. 7 of both references) , wherein , in operation as an upright surface cleaning apparatus with the portable surface cleaning unit mounted to the lower wand portion, an air flow path extends from the dirty air inlet to a clean air outlet and comprises an upstream portion that extends from the dirty air inlet to the portable surface cleaning unit, the upstream portion includes the lower wand portion and the upper wand portion. However, Conrad and Lee both fail to disclose that the wand is bendable between the upper and lower wand portions. RZ disclose a wand for a vacuum cleaner, and teaches that it is preferable to connect upper and lower wand portions by a pivotal joint to provide a first configuration and a second configuration wherein, when the upper section is in the storage position and the upper section is in the first configuration, the upper wand portion extends upwardly from the lower wand portion (for use as a standard upright vacuum) and, when the upper section is in the storage position and the support structure is moved to the second configuration, the upper wand portion is rotated forwardly with respect to the lower wand portion (to allow a user to hold the upper wand portion, while the lower wand portion may be positioned substantially closer to the ground, to reach under furniture (Col.1, lines 49-48). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the wands of Conrad and Lee with a similar pivotal joint, as taught by RZ, to allow movement between the first and second positions as desired by the user. Further, when the wands of Conrad and Lee are provided with the pivotal joint, based on the disclosed locations of the upper and lower wand portions of Conrad and Lee, the wand would be movable from the first configuration to the second configuration while the portable surface cleaning unit is mounted to the lower wand portion (as used in the upright cleaning configuration taught by Conrad and Lee). Regarding claim 2 5 , both of Conrad and Lee further disclose that, in operation as an upright surface cleaning apparatus with the portable surface cleaning unit mounted to the lower wand portion, an air flow path extends from the dirty air inlet to a clean air outlet and comprises an upstream portion that extends from the dirty air inlet to the portable surface cleaning unit, the upstream portion further comprises a flexible air flow conduit (117/350) that is positioned downstream of the bendable wand. Regarding claim 2 6 , both of Conrad and Lee further disclose that when the upper section is in the storage position and the upper section is in the first configuration, the upper wand portion has an upper end that is in air flow communication with a upstream (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 above) end of the flexible air flow conduit. Regarding claim 2 7 , RZ further disclose s that the pivot to make the wand bendable will mechanically and fluidly connect the upper wand portion and lower wand portion by a hinge member (132 of RZ) . Regarding claim 2 8 , RZ further discloses that t he hinge member comprises a flexible hose (30) . Regarding claim 2 9 , Conrad further discloses that the air treatment member comprises a cyclone bin ( 124) assembly and the cyclone bin assembly is removable from the portable surface cleaning unit while the portable surface cleaning unit is mounted to the cleaning unit mount (as shown in Fig. 4). Regarding claim 30 , both of Conrad and Lee further disclose that when the upper section is in the storage position and the upper section is in the first configuration, the upper wand portion has an upper end and a drive handle (119/308) provided on the upper end of the upper wand portion whereby, in operation with the lower wand portion is mounted to the surface cleaning head, the drive handle is operable to move the surface cleaning head across a floor. Regarding claim 31 , Lee further disclose that when the upper section is in the storage position and the upper section is in the first configuration, the upper wand portion has an upper end and a drive handle section is removable connectable to an upper end of the upper wand portion whereby, in operation with the lower wand portion is mounted to the surface cleaning head, a drive handle provided on the drive handle section is operable to move the surface cleaning head across a floor (Lee discloses that each of the wand portions and the handle as “sectioned suction pipes”, and that respective components are removable from one another; Col. 5, lines 56-67) . Regarding claim 3 2 , both of Conrad and Lee further disclose that in operation with the bendable wand in air flow communication with the surface cleaning head and the drive handle section is connected to the upper end of the upper wand portion, the drive handle section comprises a portion of the air flow path. Regarding claim 3 4 , RZ further discloses that the upper wand portion and lower wand portion are mechanically connected by a hinge member and the upper wand portion further comprises a second section (portion of 156, as viewed in Fig. 9 below pivot 158) wherein, when the upper section is in the storage position and the upper section is in the first configuration, the second section is positioned between an elevation of the hinge (158) and an elevation of a lower end of the first section. Regarding claim 3 5 , both of Conrad and Lee further disclose that the surface cleaning head has a front end, a rear end spaced from the front end in a rearward direction and first and second lateral sides that extend rearwardly from the front end to the rear end, the first and second lateral sides are spaced apart in a direction that is transverse to the rearward direction and the lower wand portion is centrally positioned between the first and second lateral sides. Regarding claim 3 6 , both of Conrad and Lee further disclose that the lower wand portion is a single hollow tube-like conduit member Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (5,836,047) in view of RZ (8,296,047) , as applied to claim 24, and further in view of Hyatt (2010/0117357) While Conrad and Lee disclose that the upper and lower sections are separable from one another, the pivot taught by RZ does not specifically disclose that the upper and lower wand portions are removable from the pivot member. Hyatt discloses another pivot member, intended for use in the same location and for the same function as the pivot of RZ, and Hyatt specifically discloses that the hinge member is formed as a separate component from the upper and lower wand portions, to allow the hinge to be removable from the wand if desired, or capable of addition to other vacuum cleanser having separable wand portions, but not pivotal connection. Therefore, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the pivot taught by RZ to the wands of Conrad and Lee in the form of a removable pivot member, similar to Hyatt, as a separable component that could be added directly to the cleaners of Conrad and Lee without any form of modification to the existing wand. Claim s 37 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over either of Conrad (8,875,340) in view of RZ (8,296,047) as applied to claim 24, and further in view of Yoshimi et al. (6,058,559). Conrad does not specifically disclose a latch for connecting the PSC to the wand, but does disclose that the mount (128) may be of any suitable configuration. Yoshimi discloses another vacuum cleaner, also having a removable PSC, supported on the wand, and Yoshimi teaches that the PSC unit has a latch (1d) which releasabl y secures the portable surface cleaning unit to the lower mounting member (2; along with lower mount portion 4d) when the upper section is in the storage position and the portable surface cleaning unit is mounted to the lower wand portion, the lower wand portion has a first part (4d) that supports the portable cleaning unit and the latch (1d) is located above the first part. Therefore, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the mount of Conrad with an alternative known mount structure of Yoshimi , to provide a lockable and secure connection between the PSC and the wand of Conrad. Conclusion 20. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Each of Rowntree (2009/0019663), Nagai et al. (6,345,408), Rosenzweig (2010/0229315) and Luebbering et al. (8,020,251) disclose surface cleaners having similar structure as the applicant’s claimed invention. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT BRYAN R MULLER whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-4489 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Brian Keller can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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 20 March 2026