DETAILED 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, 4, 5, 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gab et al. (6,058,560) in view of Olewiler (11,751,735) and Cho et al. (11,957,297).
Regarding claim 1, Gab discloses a vacuum cleaner base station, comprising a housing (surrounding compartment 30) and a butt joint portion (any of the wands/connectors 24/26 or the hose 22) detachably connected to the housing and configured to be connected to a handheld vacuum cleaner (effectively any suction hose or nozzle could be connected to a handheld cleaner in some manner, such as via the inlet of the hose/wand/connector inlet being engaged with an intake of the handheld cleaner to empty a debris container of the handheld cleaner; for example, the tapered inlet 16 of Wright [5,904,160] would allow for nearly any circular inlet of a hose/wand/connector of the base station to engage therewith, in a similar manner as disclosed by Wright for attachment 21); wherein the housing comprises a chamber (30) with a dust collection motor (32 for generating suction force for sucking dust from a dust bucket of the handheld vacuum cleaner (inherently capable of sucking debris from a handheld cleaner, as discussed above) into a dust bag (34) that is detachably connected in the chamber (Col. 2, lines 28-31), and Gab discloses the door (35) for accessing the interior of the chamber, which would be inherently capable of storing the butt joint (any of the wands/connectors 24/26) and the disassembled handheld cleaner therein (again, a relatively small handheld cleaner as taught by Wright, would be capable of being placed and stored within the chamber (30) of Gab, when the bag is not inflated by actively collecting dust.
NOTE: the handheld cleaner is not positively claimed as part of the claimed invention, such that the intended use of connecting the butt joint portion thereto, would be at least partially dependent upon the structure of the handheld cleaner, with no structure claimed that would define over a standard nozzle or wand as taught by Gab, which are capable of connecting to at least one handheld cleaner, as discussed above. Similarly, claimed function of storing parts, including the handheld cleaner, in the chamber, is also intended use, wherein the chamber disclosed by Gab would again be capable of storing any of the nozzles/wands (shown in chamber 20, but sized to easily fit within chamber 30), as well as any handheld cleaner that is sized small enough to fit therein (again with Wright as an example of a relatively small handheld cleaner that would obviously be capable of being stored therein).
However, Gab fails to disclose first and second chambers, with the motor in the second chamber and configured to suck gas from the first chamber, with the dust bag in the first chamber. Each of Olewiler and Cho disclose similar cleaner stations, also having compartments for a suction motor and a collection bag, and both teach that there is preferably a wall separating the motor chamber from the bag chamber, which allows for positioning of a secondary filter (30 of Olewiler, 12 of Cho), which is commonly known in the art as a pre-motor filter, and Cho teaching that the filter will prevent damage to the motor that may occur if any debris from the bag chamber reaches the suction motor (Col. 5, lines 7-16). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to separate chamber (30) of Gab into first and second chambers, with some form of wall therebetween, to allow for positioning of a filter prior to the motor for preventing damage to the motor.
Regarding the new limitations, filed 26 May 2026, which only provide additional structure for the handheld cleaner that is not considered to be positively claimed, the handheld cleaner of Wright, which is applied as an example of a handheld cleaner that may be connected to the butt joint of the base station, does include a main machine (10), floor brush (21) and hard tube (16/20), wherein the suction wands/nozzles (24/26) of Gab would still be obviously capable of connection (including airflow connection and/or positive mechanical connection) to the floor brush or hard tube Wright.
Regarding claim 4, Gab further discloses that a cavity (overall interior of chambers 20 and 30) of the housing is cuboid (having all rectangular faces at right angles to each other), wherein when the cavity of the housing is partitioned by a partition assembly into the first chamber and the second chamber (as taught by Olewiler and Cho, discussed for claim 1), and the second chamber is smaller than the first chamber (also taught by Olewiler and Cho, which will allow for a larger capacity collection bag, which are almost universally larger than the suction motor of vacuum cleaner stations), and the location of the motor would be considered to be in the bottom corner of the cavity (20 and 30 combined). Further, while Cho discloses that the suction motor chamber is mounted below the bag chamber, and Olewiler discloses that the motor is smaller than the bag, and offset to a side thereof, similar to Gab, none of the prior art specifically discloses that the motor chamber is positioned at a bottom corner of the cavity of the housing. However, anyone of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the specific location of the motor chamber relative to the bag chamber would be a matter of design choice, with no difference in function as long as the motor chamber is connected to the bag chamber. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the motor chamber at any relative location to the bag chamber, when separating the chambers as taught by Olewiler and Cho, including the claimed location of a bottom corner of the cavity of the housing (see MPEP 2144.04, section VI-C).
Regarding claim 5, Gab further discloses that the housing includes an upper plate, a lower plate, two side plates, and a rear plate, the partition assembly comprises a surrounding plate (any plate separating the motor from the bag chambers) fixedly connected to the lower plate (when positioned on a lower corner, as discussed for claim 4), one of the side plates, and the rear plate (either directly or indirectly, when provided as a vertical plate similar to Olewiler or connected directly thereto if/when forming a motor chamber similar to Cho that surrounds the motor and opens to the bag chamber via a top opening), a top plate (upper plate of the motor chamber, as taught by Cho) is fixed to a top of the surrounding plate, a first through hole enabling communication between the first chamber and the second chamber is formed in the top plate (similar to Cho), and an air inlet of the dust collection motor is aligned with the first through hole (taught by Cho and Olewiler); and Gab teaches a second through hole (vent 38) enabling communication between the second chamber and an external space of the housing is formed in the one of the side plates or the rear plate, and an air outlet of the dust collection motor is aligned with the second through hole (laterally aligned as shown by Cho, with Gab having a nearly identical location of the motor relative to the vent). However, the combination of Gab, Cho and Olewiler fail to disclose a second opening communicating with the second chamber that is formed in the lower plate, through which the dust collection motor enters and exits the second chamber through the second opening. However, anyone of ordinary skill in the art will understand that a chamber housing the motor will require some form of opening that the motor will fit through to allow for assembly of the device and/or removal and replacement if the motor needs service. Again, the specific claimed location of an opening to allow insertion of the motor would be a matter of design choice, with no difference in function as long as the motor is capable of insertion during assembly. Therefore, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide such a “second” opening in communication with the second (motor) chamber, to allow the motor to be positioned therein, with any of the external wall surfaces of the motor chamber being the easier option (with no other impeding structure), such that it would have been obvious to form the second opening in the lower plate (also being hidden from view during normal operation, this providing a more aesthetically pleasing appearance compared to a visible additional pane/door covering the second opening) to allow the dust collection motor to enter and exit the second chamber through the second opening (see MPEP 2144.04, section VI-C).
Regarding claim 8, Gab discloses that a “butt joint recess” (opening for connection of the hose to the first chamber) allowing insertion of the butt joint portion is formed on an upper plate of the housing, a mounting seat plate (holder 36 for connection to the bag) is fixed to a top of the first chamber corresponding to the butt joint recess (aligned therewith). However Gab fails to disclose specific structure of the mounting seat plate, but Chi discloses a similar bag connecting plate (300), including a mounting recess (between plate 300 and tabs 320; Fig. 6) is formed in the mounting seat plate, and the mounting recess is configured for insertion of the dust bag. 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 bag holder (36) of Gab, with similar structure as taught by Cho, with Cho providing substantially more structure for the plate having identical function to the plate of Gab.
Regarding claim 17, as discussed supra, Gab discloses that the housing is cuboid, but fails to disclose any specific dimensions of the housing. However, anyone of ordinary skill in the art will recognize that the specific dimensions of the housing of Gab would be adaptable to the desired size of the suction bag and motor and/or storage space within chamber 20), and again would be a matter of design choice. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to vary the specific dimensions of the housing to adapt the cleaner of Gab to a desired size and shape (see MPEP 2144.04, section IV-A).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gab et al. (6,058,560) in view of Olewiler (11,751,735) and Cho et al. (11,957,297) as applied to claims 1-2 and further in view of Kjaergaard (WO 2015/176727 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Gab further discloses that the housing comprises a casing and a front cover plate, a first opening communicating with the first (bag) chamber is formed in a front side of the casing (“front” being dependent on the orientation of view, wherein the opening is formed on a front of the casing, as viewed in Fig. 1), the front cover plate covers the first opening, and the handheld vacuum cleaner, the butt joint portion, and the dust bag enter and exit the first chamber through the first opening (as discussed supra with Gab disclosing the bag may be inserted/removed therethrough, and the handheld vacuum cleaner and the butt joint portion being inherently capable of entering and exiting the first chamber through the first opening). However, Gab merely discloses that the door (35) is operable by a latch, but fails to disclose that the door is detachably connected to the casing or that a sealing ring surrounding the first opening is arranged between the front cover plate and the casing.
Regarding the door being removable, Kjaergaard discloses a vacuum cleaner having a hinged door (20) for accessing a suction bag chamber (13), and teaches that the hinge may preferably be formed as a magnetic hinge, offering several advantages, including ease of manufacture and installation, as well as providing a simple breakaway function as needed (Pg. 3, lines 27-31) , which will allow for removal as desired to keep the door out of the way while accessing the bag and/or performing other maintenance, and will also prevent damage to the door or cleaner if/when the door is pivoted beyond the range of the hinge. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the door of Gab with a similar magnetic hinge, which will allow the door to be removed as desired and/or provide a breakaway functions to prevent damage to the door or cleaner station of Gab.
Additionally, Cho also discloses a similar hinged door for accessing the bag chamber for exchange or emptying of the bag, and teaches that the door is provided with a sealing member (18) between the door and the housing, which would be understood to anyone of ordinary skill in the art to prevent loss of suction force within the chamber to optimize suction function at the inlet of the cleaner. 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 sealing member between the door and housing of Gab, as taught by Cho, to optimize suction force, and such a sealing member positioned around the edge of the door will effectively form a sealing ring surrounding the first opening arranged between the front cover plate and the casing.
Regarding claim 3, the hinge taught by Kjaergaard, and applied to the door of Gab, as discussed supra, includes an insertion protrusion (25) arranged on one edge of the front cover plate, a slot (between hinge portions H1 and H2 in Fig. 2A) corresponding to the insertion protrusion is formed in the casing, and at least one magnetic attraction assembly (14/24) is arranged between the front cover plate and the casing to hold the casing closed. 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 door of Gab with similar hinge and closing structure, as taught by Kjaergaard, to provide the magnetic hinge, as discussed supra, and the magnetic attraction assembly functioning as the latch disclosed by Gab.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gab et al. (6,058,560) in view of Olewiler (11,751,735) and Cho et al. (11,957,297), as applied to claims 1 and 4, and further in view of Graves et al. (10,292,558).
Regarding claim 6, Gab discloses that a connection wire (40) is provided to connect the motor to an external power source with a plug (42) is fixed to an end portion of the connection wire, but fails to disclose a circuit board. Graves discloses another similar vacuum base station, also having a motor (28) and connection wire (15), and also teaches that a control board (19) is provided therebetween, which is common in the art to control the motor function and often provide a protective circuit to prevent damage to the motor. Therefore, it further would have been obvious to provide Gab with a similar circuit board, which may be arranged in the second chamber as taught by Graves (due to proximity of the motor),with the connection wire fixed to the first circuit board. Further, while Gab and Graves both disclose a plug at a distal end of the connection wire, the applied prior art fails to disclose a plug accommodated in the second (motor) chamber. The examiner hereby takes official notice that it is old and well known for power cords of appliances to optionally be removable from the appliance, having a plug for the proximal end of the cord at an outer wall of the housing, to allow for quick and easy replacement of a damaged power cord as needed. 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 connection wire of Gab as a removable power cord, to allow for quick and easy replacement, by including a plug at the proximal end of the wire, which will be located at/in the second (motor) chamber, being the location of entry of the wire into the housing, as taught by Gab and Graves.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gab et al. (6,058,560) in view of Olewiler (11,751,735), Cho et al. (11,957,297) and Graves et al. (10,292,558), as applied to claims 5-6, and further in view of Ishihara et al. (4,610,048).
Regarding claim 7, the previously applied prior art fails to disclose a fixed plate partitions the second chamber into an upper chamber and a lower chamber. Ishihara discloses another base station for a handheld vacuum cleaner, and teaches that the power cord for the base may be stored within a recess formed in the base of the housing, underneath a lower plate of the housing, which will effectively provide a hidden cord storage (out of view when in the normal operating position), external to the housing for easy access, while also including posts to wind the cord for storage. 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 cord storage and winding structure to the housing of Gab, to provide hidden cord storage, as taught by Ishihara. Thus, when provided to the motor chamber of Gab, being the disclose location of the power cord, the resulting structure would effectively require a plate fixed in the second chamber, which partitions the second chamber into an upper (internal) chamber and a lower (external storage) chamber, the first circuit board and the dust collection motor are positioned in the upper chamber (as previously discussed as being taught by Gab for the motor, and Graves for the circuit board), the connection wire is configured to be accommodated in the lower chamber, as taught by Ishihara, and connected to the first circuit board through a connector passing through the fixed plate (external plug, as discussed for claim 6), and a containing recess configured to contain the plug is formed upwards from a lower surface of the fixed plate (in order to pass through the fixed plate).
Claims 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gab et al. (6,058,560) in view of Olewiler (11,751,735) and Cho et al. (11,957,297), as applied to claims 1, 2, 4 and 8, further in view of Kjaergaard, Graves and/or Ishihara as applied to claims 3 and 5-7, respectively, and further in view of Wiske et al. (EP 1208786 A1) and Wiske et al. (FR 2676347; to be referred to hereinafter as W ‘347).
Regarding all of claims 9-16, the previously applied prior art fails to disclose buffer foam formed in the first chamber, having recesses for placing the hand vac and butt joint therein. W ‘347 discloses that suction tools may be stored within the collection bag chamber, on a tray that is accessible when the door to the bag chamber is opened. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to either include a similar tray in the bag (first) chamber made obvious by the previously applied prior art, either as additional storage to chamber (20), or to provide the bag in chamber (20) along with the tool storage of chamber (20), in a similar manner taught by W ‘347, which will allow for a substantially larger collection bag, while the motor may remain in chamber (30), as a separated chamber taught by Olewiler and Cho, as discussed supra. Regardless of which option, W’ 347 makes it obvious to store tools within the bag chamber, and Wiske teaches a similar tray for tool storage on a vacuum cleaner, having interchangeable foam cutouts to adapt the tray to different optional tool storage that will secure and protect the tools therein. Therefore, when providing any form of tool storage tray within the bag (first) chamber, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide foam to secure the tools (with the tools disclosed by Gab optionally functioning as the butt joint portion), as well as any other devices, including the handheld cleaner that may be stored therein and/or wherein the handheld cleaner, such as Wright, would obviously be capable if fitting within a cutout for other tools, such as the wand (24) of Gab. Thus, it would have been obvious to provide buffer foam arranged in the first chamber, and the buffer foam is provided with placement recesses (taught by Wiske) for placing each portion of the disassembled handheld vacuum cleaner and the butt joint portion respectively.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's argument filed 26 May 2026, regarding the prior art rejections, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant’s arguments based on the intended use and intended functions of the claimed structure, such as the intent of the butt joint to recharge a handheld cleaner, are not considered to be persuasive because none of the argued functions are actually claimed. The claimed merely recite that the butt joint is configured to be connected to a handheld vacuum cleaner, wherein the “butt joint” (wands or other connections) of Gab would obviously be capable of some form of connection to handheld cleaners, such as the cleaner of Wright, as discussed above. Further, as discussed supra, the wands/nozzles of Gab would be obviously capable of connection to the hard tube or floor brush of Wright such that activation of the suction motor of Gab would obviously evacuate at least some of the collected debris from the handheld cleaner of Wright.
The applicant also argues that the Gab reference does not disclose a handheld cleaner. However, the handheld cleaner is still not considered to be positively claimed as part of the vacuum cleaner base station, wherein the base station of Gab is considered to obviously be capable of all claimed functions.
The applicant finally argues that the Gab reference does not disclose that the handheld cleaner may be stored in the first chamber when the bag does not collect dust. However, the claimed limitation again is only an intended use of the first chamber, wherein the chamber of Gab is considered to be obviously capable of storing the handheld cleaner and at least one part (nozzle or wands 24/26) considered to read on the butt joint within the chamber having the bag therein, based on respective sizes of the nozzle, wand and known variation in sizes of a handheld cleaner similar to Wright, as discussed above.
The amendments to the claims and drawings have overcome the previous objections to the drawings and claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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