DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claims 4-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 20 July 2026. Applicant's election with traverse of Group 1 (claim 3) in the reply is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that a) the independent claim 1 does have a special technical feature and that thorough search and b) examination of any/all inventions would be so related that it would encompass the subject matter of all inventions and would not create a burden on the examiner. This is not found persuasive because:
The examiner maintains that the Kim reference effectively discloses the interchangeable first and second collectors (paragraphs 366-369 discuss the collection bag [355; first collector] to be positioned in the collector chamber [352] and that the collector may include an additional dust collecting chamber [356] that includes a multi-cyclone [357; second collector]). Therefore, the disclosure, specifically the use of the word “additional” in reference to the two different collectors, is still understood by the examiner, and considered to be clear to anyone of ordinary skill in the art, to be teaching the concept of different types of collectors (bag and cyclone) to be usable in the same cleaner housing. Thus, the independent claim does not have the novelty required to be a special technical feature, making the restriction between the remaining claims appropriate as different inventions.
Regarding the burden on the examiner, all of the distinct inventive concepts for each invention would create alternative search criteria, within differing classification areas, and even within similar or related classification areas, would require several different search terms and focus that would require extensive and burdensome search for the examiner to examine all inventions simultaneously.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim 1 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.
As noted in the requirement for restriction, dated 22 May 2026, the term “compatible” does not seems appropriate as used in claim 1. As best understood by the examiner, the limitation is considered to be intended to define that the first and second collectors are both compatible with the chamber and/or the first and second collectors are interchangeable with one another, and the limitation 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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (11,006,797) in view of Kim et al. (2021/0052121).
Cho discloses a cleaner station comprising: a housing (10) which is coupled to a dust bin of a cleaner (intended for use to empty a handheld cleaner); a dust collection motor (30) which is disposed within the housing and generates a suction force sucking dust within the dust bin; a second collector (400) that is provided with a dust receiving space which collects the dust sucked from the inside of the dust bin by the dust collection motor; and a chamber (housing 400 therein) which is disposed in the housing and forms a collector receiving space such that the collector is separably coupled to the chamber, wherein the second collector that is coupled to the chamber comprises a collector which comprises the variably-sized dust receiving space (400 disclosed as a bag, which is known in the art to be variable in size) and a breathable material-made dust bag as the dust separation means, and, and wherein the chamber comprises: a chamber body which forms an exterior of the collector receiving space; and a rail portion (300) which is disposed on an upper portion of the chamber body, allows at least a portion of the second collector to be fitted and coupled thereto, and supports the second collector such that a bottom surface of the chamber body is spaced apart from the second collector by a predetermined distance.
However, Cho fails to disclose that the chamber may also interchangeably house a first collector which is formed in the form of a bin having the fixed-sized dust receiving space and comprises a cyclone as a dust separation means. Kim discloses another similar cleaner station, having very similar structure, and Kim teaches that the collection chamber may receive a bag (Fig. 25), similar to Cho, and additionally may house a collector having an additional dust collection chamber (Fig. 26) and defines a cyclone separator (paragraphs 367-369 disclose each configuration, again with the focus on the term “additional”, when describing the first dust collector with the cyclone separators 357, after describing the bag collector 355). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure the collector chamber of Cho, to similarly provide the optional and interchangeable collectors including a bag and a cyclone, which will allow a user to select the most appropriate, cost effective and/or efficient option while cleaning.
Regarding claim 2, Cho further discloses that the collector receiving space has a cross-sectional area of a front end thereof larger than a cross-sectional area of a rear end thereof (not specifically disclosed, but best seen in Fig. 9, with the vertical height, as well as corresponding overall cross-sectional area, larger immediately inside the door 100, than a cross-section immediately adjacent the rear wall).
Regarding claim 3, Cho further discloses that the front of the chamber body is opened or closed by a housing cover (100) rotatably coupled to one side of the housing, and wherein the rail portion comprises: a rail body which forms a space (300) in which the second collector slides; an interference protrusion (220) which is disposed at a first position (Fig. 9) that interferes with the housing cover in front of the rail body (Col. 7, lines 47-50) and moves to a second position (Fig. 10) that avoids interference with the housing cover by contact with the first collector or the second collector (Col. 8, lines 1-5); and a protrusion guide (230) which is coupled to the interference protrusion and guides movement of the interference protrusion.
Conclusion
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 14 September 2026
Prosecution Insights