DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restriction
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species:
Figures 1-3 and 8
Figure 4
Figures 5A-5B
Figures6A-6B
Figure 7
Figures 9A-9C
Figures 10-10C
Figures 11A-11B
Figures 12A-12B
Figures13-17
Figures18-22
Figures 23-27
Figures28-32
Figures 33-37
The species are independent or distinct because each species introduces different structure and/or configurations from one another. 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 to 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 large number of different embodiments would require extensive consideration just to determine differences therebetween and which embodiment(s) read on each claim and would also require extensive search both within the art (for example for the multiple different configurations of the separator, filters, motor and batteries) and outside of the art to which the invention pertains (for example, in joints/connections or closure classification areas for the plural different latching mechanisms disclosed for different embodiments).
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.
During a telephone conversation with Philip Mendes da Costa on 19 November 2025, a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of species J, figures 13-17, represented by all currently pending claims 1-25. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancellation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 1 October 2025 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.
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 dirty air inlet being centrally positioned on the front wall (claims 3 and 23) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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 Objections
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “which in movable to concurrently” in lines 7-8, should be changed to “which is movable concurrently”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 3 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. The limitation is considered to be unclear because, as noted above, none of the drawings, including the elected embodiment, show the dirty air inlet as being centrally positioned (in the center, or centered on) on the front wall, which confuses the intent of the term “centrally positioned”. As best understood by the examiner, the limitation would only be understood to be supported by the drawings if considered to define the dirty air inlet as being in a central portion or section of the front wall and/or spaced from the outer edge(s) of the front wall, 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 1-6, 8-12, 14-16 and 18-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (7,547,338) in view of Dimbylow et al. (2018/0263439).
Kim discloses a dust collection apparatus for a vacuum cleaner, having an air flow path extending from a nozzle having a dirty air inlet (210), which is provided at the front end, to a clean air outlet; a non-cyclonic cleaning stage comprising a non-cyclonic chamber (313) with a screen (340) provided therein and wherein, in operation, air enters the non-cyclonic chamber and particulate matter is retained in the non-cyclonic chamber and treated air exits the non-cyclonic chamber, the nozzle being in a fixed position with respect to the non-cyclonic cleaning stage during cleaning operations; and a cyclonic cleaning stage (312, 420, 510, 520) downstream from the non-cyclonic cleaning stage, the cyclonic cleaning stage comprising a dirt collection chamber (410). However, Kim fails to disclose specifics of the vacuum cleaner to which the dust collecting unit is provide. Dimbylow discloses a similar handheld vacuum cleaner, also having first and second cleaning stage, with the second stage being a cyclonic stage very similar to Kim. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the dust collection unit of Kim to a vacuum cleaner with similar configuration to Dimbylow, to provide the suction source and support for manual operation to the dust collecting unit of Kim. Thus, the separator of Kim having the housing of Dimbylow provides a handheld vacuum cleaner a front end, a rear end and a longitudinal axis (X) extending from the front end to the rear end, the handheld vacuum cleaner comprising: an air flow path extending from a nozzle (44 of Dimbylow/equivalent to 210 of Kim) having a dirty air inlet, which is provided at the front end, to a clean air outlet (rear end of motor housing 11) of the handheld vacuum cleaner; a suction motor (12) operable to move air along the air flow path; the non-cyclonic cleaning stage of Kim, having an openable front end (similar to Dimbylow to allow emptying of the cleaning stage), which, when opened, opens the non-cyclonic chamber, with the nozzle being in a fixed position with respect to the non-cyclonic cleaning stage (provided by Kim and Dimbylow) during cleaning operations of the handheld vacuum cleaner; and the cyclonic cleaning stage of Kim downstream from the non-cyclonic cleaning stage, the cyclonic cleaning stage comprising a dirt collection chamber (410 of Kim, 51 of Dimbylow) wherein, opening the openable front end also opens the dirt collection chamber (openable end 26 of Dimbylow shown to cover the open end of the dirt collection chamber 51, and shown open to allow emptying of both non-cyclonic and cyclonic dirt collection chambers in Fig. 8), which would further be recognized by anyone of ordinary skill in the art to assist with fast and easy emptying of all collected debris, in the same manner taught by Dimbylow.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Kim and Dimbylow, as discussed for claim 1 further discloses the handheld vacuum cleaner having a front end, a rear end and a longitudinal axis extending from the front end to the rear end, the handheld vacuum cleaner comprising: an air flow path extending from a nozzle having a dirty air inlet, which is provided at the front end, to a clean air outlet of the handheld vacuum cleaner; a suction motor (of Dimbylow) operable to move air along the air flow path; the non-cyclonic cleaning stage of Kim comprising a non-cyclonic chamber with a screen provided therein and an openable front end (of Dimbylow) which is moveable concurrently with the nozzle to an open position in which the non-cyclonic chamber is opened wherein, in operation, air enters the non-cyclonic chamber and particulate matter is retained in the non-cyclonic chamber and treated air exits the non-cyclonic chamber; and, the cyclonic cleaning stage of Kim downstream from the non-cyclonic cleaning stage, the cyclonic cleaning stage comprising a dirt collection chamber wherein, opening the openable front end also opens the dirt collection chamber.
Regarding claim 2, Dimbylow further discloses that the dirty air inlet is moveable with the openable front end.
Regarding claims 3 and 23, Dimbylow further discloses that the openable front end comprises a front wall of the handheld vacuum cleaner and the dirty air inlet is centrally positioned on the front wall (appears to be centered on the front wall, but at least reads on the interpretation of “centrally positioned” as supported by the application as a whole; see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 above).
Regarding claim 4, Kim and Dimbylow both further disclose that a portion of the dirt collection chamber extends concurrently with the non-cyclonic cleaning stage
Regarding claim 5, Dimbylow further discloses a front end of the dirt collection chamber is closed by the openable front end when the openable front end is closed, as discussed supra.
Regarding claims 6, 12 and 16, Dimbylow further discloses that the suction motor has a motor axis of rotation that extends through the cyclonic cleaning stage and the non-cyclonic cleaning stage.
Regarding claims 8, 14, 18 and 24 Kim and Dimbylow both further disclose that the cyclonic cleaning stage comprises a plurality of cyclone air inlets (each guide channel 520 reading on a cyclone inlet).
Regarding claims 9, 15, 19 and 20, Dimbylow further discloses that an inlet passage extends from the dirty air inlet to the non-cyclonic chamber, the inlet passage has an inlet passage axis that extends through the non-cyclonic chamber, the cyclonic cleaning stage and the suction motor.
Regarding claim 10, Dimbylow further discloses a handle (6) and an energy store (14) in locations that a plane transverse to the longitudinal axis extends through the handle and the energy store.
Regarding claim 11, Kim and Dimbylow further disclose that a plane transverse to the longitudinal axis extends through of the non-cyclonic chamber, the screen and the dirt collection chamber (at a position coplanar with the screen).
Regarding claim 21, Dimbylow further disclose that the nozzle is directly connectable to an accessory tool (110 of Fig. 6)
Claims 7, 13, 17 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (7,547,338) in view of Dimbylow et al. (2018/0263439) as applied to claims 1, 5, 11, 16 and 22, and further in view of Catlett (4,175,352).
The combination of Kim and Dimbylow provides the non-cyclonic chamber (of Kim) having a chamber sidewall (313) extending between the openable front end and a rear end of the non-cyclonic chamber, but fails to disclose that the screen is moveable relative to the chamber sidewall. Catlett discloses another vacuum cleaner, also having a non-cyclonic chamber for separating debris from the air flow, also using a screen (62) to separate the debris, and teaches that the screen may be removable (by opening of a front wall 48, as seen in Fig. 7), which will allow a user to clean the screen and/or replace the screen as needed, which will optimize separating operation and maintain intended function. Therefore, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure the screen of Kim to also be removable, as taught by Catlett, to allow a user to clean the screen and/or replace the screen as needed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Each of Beskow et al. (8,424,154), Tonderys et al. (2019/0090701), Robinson (3,477,087), Bone et al. (5,966,774) and Wright (5,904,160) each disclose devices having similar structure and function 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 20 November 2025