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 .
This Office Action is in response to the Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed on November 19, 2025 wherein; claim(s) 1, 18 were amended, claim(s) 7-8, 11-12 canceled, and claim(s) 3, 5-6 previously canceled. Examiner notes amendments are directed to overcome rejection of claim(s) under 35 USC § 103. Therefore, claim(s) 1-2, 4, 9-10, 13-19 are pending and will be examined.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office Action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 19, 2025 has been entered.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 9-10, and 13-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brizes et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication US20090303666A1) hereafter BRIZES, in view of Neff et al. (U. S. Patent US3602942A) hereinafter NEFF, in further view of Thornbloom, Jr. (U. S. Patent US3979007A) hereinafter THORNBLOOM.
Regarding claim 1, BRIZES teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 5 below) a maintenance base station 10, applicable for cooperation with a cleaning robot, comprising a bin body 12, a rotatable cover 14, and a revolving shaft 62,
wherein the rotatable cover 14 is in rotatable connection (FIG. 2) with the bin body 12 via the revolving shaft 62, the bin body 12 has a debris collection chamber 24, 26, 28, 30, 32 and an opening B2-01 in communication with the debris collection chamber 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, and
the rotatable cover 14 is configured for blocking (FIG. 1) or revealing (FIG. 2) the opening B2-01; and
partial bin wall 30 of the bin body 12 adjacent to the opening B2-01 is stretched towards an outer side of the bin body 12, hereby forming an avoidance area B2-02, and the revolving shaft 62 is arranged in the avoidance area B2-02, such that the revolving shaft 62 and the bin wall 30 are spaced apart from each other, so as to accordingly limit an intervention of the revolving shaft 62 in a wall thickness B5-01 of the bin wall 30;
the partial bin wall 30 of the bin body 12 adjacent to the opening B2-01 is stretched along a wall thickness direction B5-03 thereof, hereby forming an avoidance groove structure, and a groove area of the avoidance groove structure comprises the avoidance area B2-02;
the maintenance base station 10 further comprises a revolving shaft holder 64, which is arranged in the avoidance groove structure; and
both shaft ends of the revolving shaft 62 are respectively inserted into the revolving shaft holder 64, and the rotatable cover 14 is in rotatable connection (FIG. 2) with the revolving shaft holder 64 via the revolving shaft 62,
wherein:
the rotatable cover 14 has a connection end B3-01 and a closed end B3-02 that are arranged oppositely along a radial direction B3-03 thereof, and
the connection end B3-01 is in rotatable connection (FIG. 2) with the bin body 12 via the revolving shaft 62; and
a center of gravity B3-04 of the rotatable cover 14 is close to the closed end B3-02 and is away from the connection end B3-01,
wherein the rotatable cover 14 has a cover body outer side surface B2-06 and a cover body inner side surface B2-07 that are arranged oppositely along a thickness direction B5-02 thereof.
BRIZES fails to teach an outer side of the bin wall 30 of the bin body 12 or a side surface of the revolving shaft holder 64 adjacent to the outer side of the bin body 12 is provided with a protruding first limiting portion, which is located in a path of the rotatable cover 14 for rotating from a position of blocking (FIG. 1) the opening B2-01 towards a position of revealing (FIG. 2) the opening B2-01, and is configured for abutting against the rotatable cover 14 so as to limit a maximum angle at which the rotatable cover 14 opens the opening B2-01.
BRIZES fails to teach an inner side of the bin wall 30 of the bin body 12 or a region of the revolving shaft holder 64 adjacent to the inner side of the bin body 12 is provided with a second limiting portion, which is located in a path of the rotatable cover 14 for rotating from the position of revealing (FIG. 2) the opening B2-01 towards the position of blocking (FIG. 1) the opening B2-01, and is configured for abutting against the rotatable cover 14 so as to limit the rotatable cover 14 in the position of blocking (FIG. 1) the opening B2-01.
BRIZES fails to teach the cover body inner side surface B2-07 gradually keeps a greater distance with the cover body outer side surface B2-06 along a direction from the connection end B3-01 towards the closed end B3-02.
However, NEFF teaches (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 6 below) a side surface 28 of the revolving shaft holder 16 adjacent to the outer side of the bin body N4-01 is provided with a protruding first limiting portion 30, which is located in a path N3-01 of the rotatable cover N3-02 for rotating from a position of blocking (Fig. 3) the opening N3-03 towards a position of revealing (Fig. 3) the opening N3-03, and is configured for abutting against the rotatable cover N3-02 so as to limit a maximum angle N4-02 at which the rotatable cover N3-02 opens the opening N3-03 for opening control (page 3, col. 1, lines 4-11, “… opening adjustment…”).
Furthermore, NEFF teaches a region 32, 38 of the revolving shaft holder 16 adjacent to the inner side of the bin body N4-01 is provided with a second limiting portion 32, which is located in a path N3-01 of the rotatable cover N3-02 for rotating from the position of revealing (Fig. 3) the opening N3-03 towards the position of blocking (Fig. 3) the opening N3-03, and is configured for abutting against the rotatable cover N3-02 so as to limit the rotatable cover N3-02 in the position of blocking (Fig. 3) the opening N3-03 closing control (page 3, col. 2, lines 60-66, “… stabilize the flanges…”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified revolving shaft holder 64 of BRIZES with revolving shaft holder 16 of NEFF for opening control / closing control.
Moreover, THORNBLOOM teaches (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 4 below) container 1, wherein the cover body inner side surface 12 gradually keeps a greater distance with the cover body outer side surface T4-01 along a direction from the connection end 20 towards the closed end 31 for structural purposes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified cover body inner side surface B2-07 / cover body outer side surface B2-06 in the maintenance base station 10 of BRIZES, and NEFF with cover body inner side surface 12 / cover body outer side surface T4-01 as taught in the container 1 of THORNBLOOM for structural purposes.
PNG
media_image1.png
701
1010
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1003
821
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
345
836
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
479
776
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
811
458
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
797
428
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
668
515
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
656
620
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
663
532
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
889
812
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
669
601
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
785
863
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
863
1062
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
390
927
media_image14.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image15.png
547
1008
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, BRIZES, NEFF, and THORNBLOOM (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all limitations of the claim. BRIZES further teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 5 above) maintenance base station 10, wherein the bin wall 30 of the bin body 12 is a single-layer bin wall 30.
Regarding claim 4, BRIZES, NEFF, and THORNBLOOM (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all limitations of the claim. BRIZES fails to teach (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 5 above) maintenance base station 10, wherein the partial bin wall 30 of the bin body 12 adjacent to the opening B2-01 is stretched along the wall thickness direction B5-03 thereof towards the inner side of the bin body 12, hereby forming the avoidance groove structure.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified partial bin wall 30 adjacent to the opening B2-01 to be stretched along a wall thickness direction B5-03 thereof towards the inner side of the bin body 12 in the maintenance base station 10 of BRIZES, NEFF, and THORNBLOOM to form the avoidance groove structure since a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ47.
Regarding claim 9, BRIZES, NEFF, and THORNBLOOM (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all limitations of the claim. BRIZES fails to teach (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 5 above) maintenance base station 10, wherein the opening B2-01 has a first edge B4-01 and a second edge B4-02 arranged oppositely to the first edge B4-01, a notch is provided in an extension of the first edge B4-01 towards a direction being close to or departing from the second edge B4-02, the bin body 12 is provided with an avoidance groove structure extending from the notch, and a groove area of the avoidance groove structure comprises the avoidance area B2-02.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified first edge B4-01 / second edge B4-02 in the opening B2-01 of BRIZES, NEFF, and THORNBLOOM to provide a notch / avoidance groove structure (therefore comprising avoidance area B2-02) to meet design requirements since a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ47.
Regarding claim 10, BRIZES, NEFF, and THORNBLOOM (as applied to claim 9 above) teaches all limitations of the claim. BRIZES further teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 5 above) maintenance base station 10, wherein the notch is provided in the extension of the first edge B4-01 towards the direction being close to the second edge B4-02, a sealing ring 54 is provided on a side 50 of the rotatable cover 14 close to the opening B2-01, the sealing ring 54 encloses a circumference side 50 of the rotatable cover 14, the sealing ring 54 cooperates with an edge B5-02 of the opening B2-01, and the sealing ring 54 is in location fit with the notch.
BRIZES fails to teach sealing ring 54 is provided with a U-shaped segment.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified sealing ring 54 in the maintenance base station 10 of BRIZES, NEFF, and THORNBLOOM with a U-shaped segment to meet design requirements since a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ47.
Regarding claim 13, BRIZES, NEFF, and THORNBLOOM (as applied to claim 2 above) teaches all limitations of the claim. BRIZES fails to teach (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 5 above) maintenance base station 10, wherein the opening B2-01 has a first edge B4-01 and a second edge B4-02 arranged oppositely to the first edge B4-01, a notch is provided in an extension of the first edge B4-01 towards a direction being close to or departing from the second edge B4-02, the bin body 12 is provided with an avoidance groove structure extending from the notch, and a groove area of the avoidance groove structure comprises the avoidance area B2-02.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified first edge B4-01 / second edge B4-02 in the opening B2-01 of BRIZES, NEFF, and THORNBLOOM to provide a notch / avoidance groove structure (therefore comprising avoidance area B2-02) to meet design requirements since a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ47.
Regarding claim 14, BRIZES, NEFF, and THORNBLOOM (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all limitations of the claim. BRIZES further teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 5 above) maintenance base station 10, wherein a bin wall 30 of the bin body 12 is in a layered structure having one layer.
BRIZES fails to teach bin wall 30 of the bin body 12 is in a layered structure having two layers or more.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bin wall 30 in the maintenance base station 10 of BRIZES, NEFF, and THORNBLOOM as a layered structure (having two layers or more) to reduce material use since duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 15, BRIZES, NEFF, and THORNBLOOM (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all limitations of the claim. BRIZES fails to teach (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 5 above) maintenance base station 10, wherein the avoidance groove structure has a notch opened towards a top of the bin body 12 and an notch opened towards a lateral outside of the bin body 12, and the two notches communicate with each other to constitute an integral notch.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified avoidance groove structure in the maintenance base station 10 of BRIZES, NEFF, and THORNBLOOM to comprise notches (opening towards top / lateral outside of bin body 12) to meet design requirements since a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ47.
Regarding claim 16, BRIZES, NEFF, and THORNBLOOM (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all limitations of the claim. BRIZES fails to teach (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 5 above) maintenance base station 10, wherein the avoidance groove structure has a groove bottom wall, wherein the groove bottom wall is provided with upright post structures in a vertical state, and the each upright post structure is configured to match a fixing hole structure in a revolving shaft holder 64 and is configured for being inserted into the fixing hole structure and hereby fixing the revolving shaft holder 64 in the avoidance groove structure.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified avoidance groove structure in the maintenance base station 10 of BRIZES, NEFF, and THORNBLOOM to comprise groove bottom wall / upright post structure / fixing hole structure to meet assembly requirements for the revolving shaft holder 64 since a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ47.
Regarding claim 17, BRIZES, NEFF, and THORNBLOOM (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all limitations of the claim. BRIZES fails to teach (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 5 above) maintenance base station 10, wherein the rotatable cover 14 includes a cover body portion 46 and a sliding guide portion B3-05 in connection with the cover body portion 46, the cover body portion 46 is configured for blocking (FIG. 1) or revealing (FIG. 2) the opening B2-01, the sliding guide portion B3-05 is provided with a sliding guide surface, the revolving shaft holder 64 is provided with a guide groove structure, and the groove wall of the guide groove structure includes a sliding guide wall;
when the rotatable cover 14 rotates relative to the bin body 12, the sliding guide portion B3-05 rotates relative the guide groove structure, and the sliding guide surface matches the sliding guide wall and rotates relative to the sliding guide wall.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified rotatable cover 14 in the maintenance base station 10 of BRIZES, NEFF, and THORNBLOOM to comprise cover body portion 46 / sliding guide portion B3-05 (provided with sliding guide surface) and revolving shaft holder 64 comprise guide groove structure / sliding guide wall to meet assembly requirements of the rotatable cover 14 since a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ47.
Regarding claim 18, BRIZES, NEFF, and THORNBLOOM (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all limitations of the claim. BRIZES further teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 5 above) maintenance base station 10, wherein a cover body portion 46 comprises an outer cover body and an inner cover body, and the outer cover body and the inner cover body are joint together along a thickness direction of the cover body portion 46 and constitute an entity of the cover body portion 46,
wherein a side surface of the outer cover body away from the inner cover body is a cover body outer side surface B2-06, while a side surface of the inner cover body away from the outer cover body is a cover body inner side surface B2-07.
Regarding claim 19, BRIZES, NEFF, and THORNBLOOM (as applied to claim 18 above) teaches all limitations of the claim. BRIZES further teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 5 above) maintenance base station 10, wherein when the cover body portion 46 is located at a position of blocking (FIG. 1) the opening B2-01, the cover body outer side surface B2-06 is arranged horizontally.
BRIZES fails to teach cover body portion 46 is located at a position of blocking (FIG. 1) the opening B2-01, cover body inner side surface B2-07 is arranged obliquely, and correspondingly, the opening B2-01 is arranged obliquely.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified cover body inner side surface B2-07 / opening B2-01 in the maintenance base station 10 of BRIZES, NEFF, and THORNBLOOM to be arranged obliquely to meet design requirements since a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ47.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding rejections of claim(s) under USC § 103 filed on November 19, 2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejections does not rely on exactly all references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the Applicant’s arguments.
With respect to the art rejections, in accordance with MPEP 2111.01, during examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 70 USPQ2D 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
LI et al. (China Patent Application Publication CN112690699A): teaches a “dust collector device” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Miyairi et al. (Japan Patent Application Publication JP2021090712A): teaches a “container” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Masayuki et al. (Japan Patent JP6940760B2): teaches a “rice cooker” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Hoyt (U. S. Patent US11027907B2): teaches a “container” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Keller (U. S. Patent Application Publication US20120124777A1): teaches a “hinge” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Pendarvis (U. S. Patent Application Publication US20130276266A1): teaches a “box” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Taylor (U. S. Patent Application Publication US20190263573A1): teaches a “tumbler” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Croft et al. (W. I. P. O. Patent Application Publication WO2003095320A1): teaches a “container hinge” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCOS JAVIER RODRIGUEZ MOLINA whose telephone number is (571) 272-8947. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30 AM to 5:30 PM.
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, ANTHONY D. STASHICK can be reached on (571) 272-4561. 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.
/M.J.R.M./
/Anthony D Stashick/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3735