DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/26/2025 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” or a generic placeholder but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“suction device” in claim 1.
“cleaning unit” in claims 3 and 5.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jung et al. (KR20160137494), attached as a PDF in office action filed 6/20/2024 and hereinafter referred to as Jung.
Regarding claim 1, Jung discloses a cleaning device (Fig. 8 element 10) comprising: a vacuum cleaner (Fig. 8 element 20) including an intake portion (Fig. 8 element 21a) to suction foreign substance into the vacuum cleaner (0040 and 0045), and a dust collecting container (Fig. 8 element 43) to collect the foreign substance through centrifugal rotation separation (0040 and 0045); and a dust collecting station (Fig. 8 element 60) connectable to the dust collecting container and configured to remove the foreign substance collected in the dust collecting container (Fig. 8, 0063), the dust collecting station including: a station body (see annotated Fig. 7 below), a seating portion (see annotated Fig. 5D below) including an opening (Fig. 1 element 62a) through to an inside of the dust collecting container while the dust collecting station is connected to the dust collecting container (Fig. 8, 0073), a suction device (Fig. 8 element 91) configured to generate a suction airflow so that the foreign substance in the dust collecting container are suctioned through the opening of the seating portion (0111), a collecting portion (Fig. 5d element 94) arranged between the seating portion and the suction device (Figs. 5d and 6, the collecting portion (94) is between the suction device (91) and the seating portion (62) in terms of air flow) and configured to collect the foreign substance that are suctioned through the opening of the seating portion (0087), a base, at a lower side of the station body (see annotated Fig. 7 below), such that the station body is supported on the base along a vertical direction of the cleaning device (see annotated Fig. 7 below, where the station body is connected, and therefore supported by, the base along the section of contact between the station body and base), the base being configured to allow the suction airflow to flow therein (Fig. 6 shows the airflow flowing between the station body and the base), and an exhaust portion (Fig. 6 element 93 and the accommodation portion shown in annotated Fig. 5D' below) which includes an exhaust hole (Fig. 6 element 93a) connectable to the base and adjacent to the intake portion (Fig. 6 shows the exhaust hole connected to the base and adjacent to (i.e. next to) the intake portion) to allow the suction airflow that flows from the seating portion through the station body to flow toward the base through to the exhaust portion and allow the suction airflow to be returned into the intake portion through the exhaust hole of the exhaust portion to thereby separated foreign substance remaining on the intake portion from the intake portion (Figs. 6 and 8, 0095 and 0099), wherein the exhaust portion and the intake portion are inclined relative to the vertical direction of the cleaning device with the suction airflow is returned into the intake portion (Figs. 6 and 8 and see annotated Fig. 7 below for the vertical direction of the suction airflow, where both the exhaust portion and the intake portion are inclined (i.e. make an angle with a line or plane) to the vertical direction of the cleaning device at a 90 degree angle).
PNG
media_image1.png
435
723
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
707
771
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
679
710
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Jung discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses a circulation flow path extends along the exhaust portion, the station body, the base, and the vacuum cleaner (Figs. 6 and 8, 0111-0112).
Regarding claim 8, Jung discloses the limitations of claim 2, as described above, and further discloses the base includes: a communication frame (see annotated Fig. 7' below) including a communication flow path forming a part of the circulation flow path (Fig. 8, the portion of the flow path which extends through element 62a corresponds to a communication flow path); and a support frame (see annotated Fig. 7'' below) connected to the communication frame to be in contact with an installation surface of the dust collecting station (see annotated Fig. 7'' below).
PNG
media_image4.png
413
739
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
413
723
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Jung discloses the limitations of claim 8, as described above, and further discloses the dust collecting station further includes a filter (Fig. 6 element 94a) provided at a lower side of the collecting portion (Fig. 7 shows the communication between the suction device (91) and the dust collecting portion (94) is shown at a lower portion at a lower end of the dust collecting portion and at least part of the filter would be located in that area and therefore the filter is provided at a lower side of the collecting portion) to filter air that has passed through the collecting portion, and the air that has passed through the filter is introduced into the communication flow path of the base (Fig. 6, 0111-0112).
Regarding claim 10, Jung discloses the limitations of claim 9, as described above, and further discloses the exhaust portion includes an accommodation frame in which the intake portion is accommodated (see annotated Fig. 5D’ above, where accommodation portion corresponds to an accommodation frame and the accommodation frame accommodates (e.g. provides sufficient room for) the intake portion (21a)), the accommodation frame integrally formed with the communication frame for air to circulate (see annotated Figs. 5D’ and 7’ above).
Regarding claim 11, Jung discloses the limitations of claim 10, as described above, and further discloses the accommodation frame includes a front seating portion that is bent to allow a portion of a front side of the intake portion to be seated thereon (see annotated Fig. 5D’ above, where the 90 degree corner corresponds to the front seating portion being bent and the front seating portion would be capable of having a portion of a front side of the intake portion to be seated thereon).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (KR20160137494), attached as a PDF in office action filed 6/20/2024 and hereinafter referred to as Jung, in view of Choi et al. (KR101412580), attached as a PDF in office action filed 6/20/2024 and hereinafter referred to as Choi.
Regarding claim 3, Jung discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the exhaust portion includes: an accommodation frame on which the intake portion is seated (see annotated Fig. 5D’ above, where the intake portion (21a and 41) is seated (e.g. located at) the accommodation frame).
Jung fails to disclose a motor portion mounted on the accommodation frame; and a cleaning unit having one end coupled to the motor portion to separate dust accumulated on the intake portion, the cleaning unit arranged inside the accommodation frame to face a bottom surface of the intake portion.
Choi is also concerned with a cleaning device and teaches a motor portion (Fig. 8 element 810) mounted on the accommodation frame (Figs. 7 and 11, where the section of element 141 which the motor portion (810) is mounted to corresponds to an accommodation frame); and a cleaning unit (Fig. 8 every element excluding element 810) having one end coupled to the motor portion (Fig. 8) to separate dust accumulated on the intake portion (0095), the cleaning unit arranged inside the accommodation frame to face a bottom surface of the intake portion (Fig. 11), the cleaning unit includes: a rotation shaft (Fig. 8 element 803) configured to rotate by receiving power from the motor portion (0088-0091); and a brush (Fig. 8 element 804) extending in a radial direction with respect to the rotation shaft and provided to rotate (Fig. 8), the brush provided to separate dust on the bottom surface of the intake portion (0095). It 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 to modify the cleaning device of Jung to include a motor portion and cleaning unit as claimed, as taught by Choi, because Choi teaches that the combination of the motor and cleaning unit allows for cleaning of the intake portion (0095 where the edge rim ether corresponds to a portion of the intake portion).
Regarding claim 5, Jung, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 3, as described above, and further discloses the cleaning unit includes a cleaner (Choi, Fig. 8 every element excluding element 810, where cleaner is a subset of the cleaning unit which encompasses all of the cleaning unit) including the rotation shaft and the brush.
Jung, as modified, fails to disclose the cleaner being provided in plural to sweep off the dust in the intake portion. Pursuant of MPEP 2144.04-VI-B, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the cleaner in plural (e.g. provide at least more than one cleaner), since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involve only routine skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Jang fails to disclose “an exhaust portion which includes an exhaust hole connectable to the base and adjacent to the intake portion to allow the suction airflow that flows from the seating portion through the station body to flow toward the base through to the exhaust portion and allow the suction airflow to be returned into the intake portion through the exhaust hole of the exhaust portion”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds that Jang does disclose an exhaust portion (Fig. 6 element 93 and the accommodation portion shown in annotated Fig. 5D' below) which includes an exhaust hole (Fig. 6 element 93a) connectable to the base and adjacent to the intake portion (Fig. 6 shows the exhaust hole connected to the base and adjacent to (i.e. next to) the intake portion) to allow the suction airflow that flows from the seating portion through the station body to flow toward the base through to the exhaust portion and allow the suction airflow to be returned into the intake portion through the exhaust hole of the exhaust portion (Figs. 6 and 8, 0095 and 0099). See rejection of claim 1 above.
Applicant argues that Jang fails to disclose “the exhaust portion and the intake portion are inclined relative to the vertical direction of the cleaning device with the suction airflow is returned into the intake portion”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds that Jang does disclose the exhaust portion and the intake portion are inclined relative to the vertical direction of the cleaning device with the suction airflow is returned into the intake portion (Figs. 6 and 8 and see annotated Fig. 7 above for the vertical direction of the suction airflow, where both the exhaust portion and the intake portion are inclined (i.e. make an angle with a line or plane) to the vertical direction of the cleaning device at a 90 degree angle).
Applicant argues that Choi fails to disclose an exhaust portion which includes “an accommodation frame on which the intake portion is seated”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds that Choi is not being relied upon to teach an exhaust portion but is instead being used to teach a motor portion which is mounted on an accommodation frame (i.e. a motor which is mounted in a generic frame which defines a cavity of a dust collection station) and a cleaning unit which is located inside the accommodation frame, which examiner finds Choi does disclose. Applicant has not argued examiner’s motivation for the combination of “Choi teaches that the combination of the motor and cleaning unit allows for cleaning of the intake portion (0095 where the edge rim ether corresponds to a portion of the intake portion)” and has not argued why the combining the teachings of Choi into Jang is non-obvious and therefore examiner finds this argument unpersuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CALEB A HOLIZNA whose telephone number is (571)272-5659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-4:30.
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, Monica Carter can be reached on 571-272-4475. 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.
/C.A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3723 /MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723