2. In patent applications, there is a general principle about numbering requirements. The numbers in the drawings should be reflected in the instructions, and the numbers in the instructions must be found in the drawings. In addition, there should be no phenomenon that the same thing has different numbers and the same number represents different things. Apart from the above problems, nothing else is explicitly prohibited. The problem you mentioned is that the writer's number is not perfect, which does not affect the authorization. Theoretically, the claim 1 does not need to be numbered, but of course the corresponding number can be found in the specification to clarify the meaning of the claim.
3. For the exclusive right, I think the position relationship between the sucker and the pole should be limited, because the sucker can only be set at both ends to solve the problem, so your scheme contains an impracticable scheme, so it is suggested to add that the sucker is set at the end of the pole; Furthermore, it is suggested to write the claims in different levels. All your subordinate rights refer to 1. Although the scope of protection is relatively large, there are few schemes. Suggestions 4 and 5 refer to 1 or 2 or 3, that is, the following scheme is added, and the rod is made into a telescopic rod or a folding rod on the basis of a vacuum sucker; Or a telescopic rod or a folding rod is made on the basis of the sucker.
There is something wrong with your number. Sucker and rod cannot use the same number 1. It is suggested to use the number 1 for sucker and 2 for rod. Vacuum suction cups and adhesive suction cups belong to suction cups, and there is no need to number them, because they have been numbered with suction cups 1. Similarly, telescopic poles and folding poles are poles. Just use the number 2, and don't renumber it.