DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claim 29-31 and 35-42 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 15 May 2026.
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 inlet tube having an end that is curved along a curvature of a circle (claim 22) and/or being curved along (i) a first curvature circle defined in a first cross-sectional view of the inlet tube and (ii) a second curvature circle defined in a second cross-sectional view of the inlet tube (claim 23) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Figures 8 and 9 show the curvature of the end of the inlet tube but the curvature lines C1 and C2 are not shown as curves of a circle due to clear variable arc, whereas circles have a consistent arc. 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 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.
Claims 22 and 23 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. As discussed supra, the claims recite that the end of the inlet tube is defined by the curvature of first and second circles, whereas the drawings clearly show arcs with a variable radius, which would not be circular. As best understood by the examiner, the limitations are only considered to be supported by the drawings if the end of the inlet tube is curved along first and second arcs (including possible non-uniform arcs), 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 22, 24-28, 32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (KR 10-2161708) in view of Dieudonne (EP 3677159; to be referred to hereinafter as DE).
Regarding claim 22, Cho discloses a cleaner station comprising: a suction flow path having an inlet end and an outlet end, the inlet end being configured to fluidly communicate with a dust bin of a cleaner (via cover 21); and a dust collecting part (400) connected to the outlet end of the suction flow path and configured to collect dust in the dust bin of the cleaner, wherein the dust collecting part comprises: a dust collecting body that defines a dust inlet (412) connected to the outlet end of the suction flow path. However, Cho fails to disclose any specific internal structure of the dust collecting part. DE discloses a similar dust collecting part, configured for connection to an outlet end of an air flow path of a vacuum cleaner, for collecting debris therein, and teaches that the dust inlet of the collecting part preferably includes an inlet tube (inner surface of plate 11, with inlet 18) that extends from a circumferential surface of the dust inlet toward an inside of the dust collecting body, the inlet tube having an end that is curved along a curvature of an arc (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 above) defined in a cross-sectional view (as viewed in Fig. 12) of the inlet tube, and an inlet tube cover (20) that is disposed at the end of the inlet tube and configured to open and close the end of the inlet tube, which is known in the art to close the opening of the collection part when suction is not applied to prevent debris from exiting the collection part when not in use and/or while removing the collection part for replacement or emptying. Further, DE teaches that the inlet tube includes a registration part to prevent closure of the station housing unless the collection part is properly installed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the inlet of DE to the collection part of Cho, including the inlet tube and tube cover, to prevent debris from exiting the collection part when not in use or during removal, and also to prevent closure of the cleaner station housing if the collection part is not properly installed, as taught by DE.
Regarding claim 24, when the inlet of DE is applied to Cho, as discussed supra, DE further discloses a board (11 of DE) that is disposed at an upper surface of the dust collecting body and defines the dust inlet, and DE further teaches that the inlet tube extends downward from the board toward the inside of the dust collecting body (as seen in Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 25, when the inlet of DE is applied to Cho, as discussed supra, DE further discloses that the dust collecting part further comprises an inlet tube cover fixing member (A, shown below in annotated Fi. 7) that fixes one side of the inlet tube cover to the
PNG
media_image1.png
315
590
media_image1.png
Greyscale
board and that is configured to bring the inlet tube cover into contact with the end of the inlet tube.
Regarding claim 26, when the inlet of DE is applied to Cho, as discussed supra, DE further discloses that the dust collecting part further comprises a rib (B) that protrudes from the inlet tube cover fixing member, and wherein an end of the rib supports the inlet tube cover.
Regarding claim 27, when the inlet of DE is applied to Cho, as discussed supra, DE further discloses that the rib is configured to apply pressure to the inlet tube cover and to deform the inlet tube cover.
Regarding claim 28, when the inlet of DE is applied to Cho, as discussed supra, DE further discloses that the rib is disposed radially outside the suction flow path (spaced radially from the suction flow path by the inlet tube cover).
Regarding claim 32, when the inlet of DE is applied to Cho, as discussed supra, DE further discloses that the dust collecting part further comprises a side wall (19) that is disposed at a lateral side of the dust inlet and extends toward the inside of the dust collecting body.
Regarding claim 33, when the inlet of DE is applied to Cho, as discussed supra, DE further discloses that the dust collecting part further comprises a suction flow path sealer (29) that extends radially inward from the dust inlet and is in contact with the suction flow path.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (KR 10-2161708) in view of Dieudonne (EP 3677159; to be referred to hereinafter as DE), as applied to claim 22, and further in view of Schuck (12,560,242).
The combination of Cho and DE provide the cleaner station as discussed supra, and DE discloses that the inlet tube is curved along a first curvature arc defined in a first cross-sectional view of the inlet tube, but fails to disclose that the inlet tube is also curved along a second curvature arc defined in a second cross-sectional view of the inlet tube, the second curvature arc intersecting the first curvature arc. Schuck discloses a non-return valve, having an inlet tube and inlet tube cover, very similar to DE, and teaches that the end of the inlet tube is curved along (i) a first curvature arc defined in a first cross-sectional view (Fig. 1) of the inlet tube and (ii) a second curvature arc defined in a second cross-sectional view (Fig. 4) of the inlet tube, the second curvature arc intersecting the first curvature circle, and Schuck teaches that the arcuate shape of the closure will prevent liquid (or other debris) from accumulating on the blocking the flap, which may impair the displacement of the blocking flap (Col. 2, lines 33-39) and possibly prevent sealing of the flap in the closed position. 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 inlet end of the inlet pipe with a similar shape, as taught by Schuck, to prevent debris or liquid from accumulating on the cover and potentially preventing intended movement or sealing of the cover.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (KR 10-2161708) in view of Dieudonne (EP 3677159; to be referred to hereinafter as DE), as applied to claim 22, and further in view of Yuen (2005/0091785).
The combination of Cho and DE provide the cleaner station as discussed supra, but fail to disclose a sterilizing light. Yuen discloses another similar suction cleaner having a collection part therein for collecting debris, and teaches that a sterilizing light-emitting member (32) is disposed at an outside of the dust collecting body, wherein the dust collecting part further comprises a sterilizing light irradiating part (transparent part 33) that is configured to transmit sterilizing light emitted from the sterilizing light-emitting member into the dust collecting body, which will allow the debris collected therein to be irradiated by the sterilizing light to kill bacteria and viruses, which will clearly improve the cleaner by preventing spread of such bacteria and/or viruses to a user or others in the area. 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 sterilizing light-emitting member disposed outside of the dust collecting body, and a sterilizing light irradiating part that is configured to transmit sterilizing light emitted from the sterilizing light-emitting member into the dust collecting body, as taught by Yuen, to kill bacteria and viruses on the debris collected inside the collection part.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Each of Kim et al. (2024/0315510), Cho et al. (2021/0068603), Jacobs et al. (EP 0893964), Wolff et al. (11,8112,918) and Morin et al. (2016/0374528) disclose devices having similar structure and/or functions as the applicant’s 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 8 June 2026
Prosecution Insights