The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office Action on the merits.
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgement is made to the RCE amendments received February 6, 2026, amending Claim 1 and cancelling Claim 20.
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 1 and 2, and therefore dependent Claims 3-19, 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the first suction portion". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims since a first suction portion has not been previously claimed.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the second suction portion". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims since a second suction portion has not been previously claimed.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “a first flow path”, however, “a first flow path” was previously presented in Claim 1. Since the Applicant’s disclosure does not teach two different “first flow paths”, this limitation is indefinite and the scope of the limitation is unclear.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “a second flow path”, however, “a second flow path” was previously presented in Claim 1. Since the Applicant’s disclosure does not teach two different “second flow paths”, this limitation is indefinite and the scope of the limitation is unclear.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “a third flow path”, however, “a third flow path” was previously presented in Claim 1. Since the Applicant’s disclosure does not teach two different “third flow paths”, this limitation is indefinite and the scope of the limitation is unclear.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 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.
As necessitated by amendment, Claims 1-3, 6-13, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hackert et al. US 2020/0329933 (hereafter Hackert et al.) in view of design choice.
Regarding Amended Claim 1, Hackert et al. teaches:
1. A cleaner station (base station 10) to receive a at least one of a first vacuum cleaner (second cleaning device 30) or a second vacuum cleaner (first cleaning device 20), the cleaner station comprising:
a first station (head module 50) which receives the first vacuum cleaner (Figure 1);
a second station (bottom module 40) which receives the second vacuum cleaner (Figure 1);
a first suction port (fluidic connection 50F) which is provided in the first station and communicates with a dust bin (collection container 30C) of the first vacuum cleaner based on the first vacuum cleaner being received in the first station (Figure 1), wherein the first suction port (fluidic connection 50F) is open upward (shown in Modified Figure 1 below, see discussion below);
a second suction port (fluidic connection 40F) which is provided in the second station and communicates with a dust bin (collection container 20C) of the second vacuum cleaner based on second vacuum cleaner being received in the second station (Figure 1);
a dust storage box (container 50G) including a dust inlet (labeled in attached Figure 1 below) that receives dust from at least one of the first suction port or the second suction port (connects to both as shown in Figure 1); [[and]]
a suction motor (working machine 50J) that generates an air flow to suction dust through the at least one of the first suction port or the second suction port (depending on position of shut-off apparatus 10E, Figure 1);
a first flow path (labeled in attached Figure 1 below) which communicates with the first suction portion (assumed to be fluidic connection 50F);
a second flow path (labeled in attached Figure 1 below) which communicates with the second suction portion (assumed to be fluidic connection 40F);
a third flow path (labeled in attached Figure 1 below) where the first flow path and the second flow path join and which communicates with the dust inlet (labeled and shown in attached Figure 1 below)(also see attached zoomed in Figure 1 below); and
a flow path switching portion (labeled in attached zoomed in Figure 1 below) which selectively opens and closes the first flow path and the second flow path in response to a combined state (connected state) of the first vacuum cleaner and the second vacuum cleaner (Paragraph [0181] – “The shut-off apparatuses 10E, 10M or the supply lines 10J, 10K are preferably normally closed and/or are preferably only (automatically) actuated or opened when the associated cleaning device 20 or 30 is connected to the base station 10 or has assumed the connection position,” and Paragraph [0182] – “Preferably the shut-off apparatuses 10E, 10M are controlled or actuated independently of each other. In this way it is possible to open or close only one or (simultaneously) both shut-off apparatuses 10E, 10M or to empty/suck out only one or (simultaneously) both cleaning devices 20, 30” and Paragraph [0257] - “Any of the above aspects, characterized in that the base station (10) has at least one shut-off apparatus (10E, 10M) for fluidically connecting the working machine (50J) selectively to one or more cleaning devices (20, 30)”),
wherein the dust storage box (container 50G) is disposed below (shown in attached Figure 1 and Modified Figure 1 below) the dust bin (collection container 30C) of the first vacuum cleaner (second cleaning device 30), and the suction motor (working machine 50J) is disposed below the dust storage box (shown in attached Figure 1 and Modified Figure 1 below).
Hackert et al. discloses as shown in Figure 1 a suction tube projecting outward from the first vacuum cleaner 30 that horizontally connects to the first suction port 50F that also projects from the housing. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a tube projecting outward from the vacuum cleaner not only would be cosmetically undesirable but also would possibly be safety issue for a user. One with ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the disclosed location was poor and that relocating the tube to the inclined sidewall of the vacuum cleaner would allow it to be flush with the surface and would eliminate the danger of a projecting tube. Additionally, if the tube were relocated to the inclined sidewall the vacuum cleaner, the tube connection would be hidden during mounting. Below is a labeled Figure 1 showing the disclosed design. Alongside, the Examiner has provided a Modified Figure 1 that includes design modifications that would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fix the obvious design issue previously identified. As shown, the obvious design modifications are merely a relocation of the suction tube/first suction port and a tubing rerouting to create a cosmetically pleasing appearance, improve safety, and create an advantageous sealing configuration.
PNG
media_image1.png
1048
1395
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
551
755
media_image2.png
Greyscale
To help the Applicant understand why one with ordinary skill would have been motivated to relocate the suction tube/first suction port to the incline to improve sealing, the Examiner has created a simplified drawing showing the location of the first suction port in the stationary first station and the vacuum cleaner in three different locations. In location 1, the vacuum cleaner is positioned above the holder 10c. In location 2, the vacuum cleaner is lowered vertically to partially engage with the holder 10c. In location 3, the vacuum cleaner is fully lowered onto, and fully engaged with, the holder 10c such that suction tube/first suction port are fluidly connected. As shown, this arrangement allows for an efficient sealing between two planar surfaces where they engage only at the end of the mounting operation and the weight of the vacuum cleaner creates the force that provides a sealing pressure.
Therefore, for the above reasons, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the suction tube/first suction port and reroute internal tubing with the motivation to improve the device design would naturally result in the first suction port oriented upward as claimed, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
PNG
media_image3.png
909
590
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Hackert et al. teaches:
2. The cleaner station of claim 1, comprising: --
a first flow path (labeled in attached Figure 1 above) which communicates with the first suction port (fluidic connection 50F);
a second flow path (labeled in attached Figure 1 above) which communicates with the second suction port (fluidic connection 40F);
a third flow path (labeled in attached Figure 1 above) that communicates with the first flow path and the second flow path and with the dust inlet (labeled in attached Figure 1 above).
Regarding Claim 3, Hackert et al. teaches:
3. The cleaner station of claim 2, comprising a flow path switch (shut-off apparatus 10E) which selectively opens and closes the first flow path and the second flow path based on whether the first vacuum cleaner is received in the first station and the second vacuum cleaner is received in the second station (Paragraph [0108]).
Regarding Claim 6, Hackert et al. teaches:
6. The cleaner station of claim 1,
wherein the dust storage box (container 50G) includes a dust bag (filter 50H) that is detachably coupled to the dust inlet (labeled in attached Figure 1 above), and wherein the dust bag comprises a filter that filters dust from air introduced into the dust inlet (shown in Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 7, Hackert et al. teaches:
7. The cleaner station of claim 1, further comprising an exhaust port (see discussion below) which exhausts dust-filtered air (working machine 50J draws air through the filter 50H and into the fan and must exhaust the air through an exhaust port (not shown) in order to operate with a pressure differential).
Hackert et al. shows in Figure 1 what appears to be a louver-like cover in front of the working machine 50J. However, he does not specifically disclose the shown louver-like cover is an exhaust port. It would have been obvious common knowledge to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a fan operates by sucking air into the housing, pressurizing the air with an impeller, and then exhausting it from the fan housing. In this case, it would have been obvious to modify the Hackert et al. to include an exhaust port necessary for the physics of fan operation somewhere on the device since the Applicant has not claimed it to have any specific structure that would be unique to the invention.
Regarding Claim 8, Hackert et al. teaches:
8. The cleaner station of claim 1, comprising a space (cavity into housing shown in Figure 1) to receive the dust storage box (container 50G), the space being opened and closed at one side thereof (flap 10D is designed to open to provide access to replace the filter 50H, Paragraph [0100]).
Regarding Claim 9, Hackert et al. teaches:
9. The cleaner station of claim 1, further comprising a seal (see discussion below) provided at least one of the dust inlet (labeled in attached Figure 1 above), the first suction port (fluidic connection 50F), or the second suction port (fluidic connection 40F).
Hackert et al. shows in attached Figure 1 above the labeled dust inlet and the first and second suction ports that are designed to interface with the vacuum cleaners. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include sealing parts at all the claimed locations to allow the working machine 50J to create a maximum amount of suction pressure and air flow for collecting debris from the vacuum cleaners and sucking it into the filter 50H for collection with the motivation to minimize air leakage from atmosphere which would tend to degrade the suction pressure.
Regarding Claim 10, Hackert et al. teaches:
10. The cleaner station of claim 1,
wherein the first station (head module 50) provides power (through second electrical connection 50E) to the first vacuum cleaner (second cleaning device 30) when received in the first station, and
wherein the second station (bottom module 40) provides power (through first electrical connection 40E) to the second vacuum cleaner (first cleaning device 20) when received in the second station.
Regarding Claim 11, Hackert et al. teaches:
11. The cleaner station of claim 3,
wherein the flow path switch (shut-off apparatus 10E) includes an opening closing plate (shut-off flap or butterfly, Paragraph [0108]) which includes a communication hole (intake holes into shut-off apparatus 10E, Figure 1) and is movable slidingly, and
wherein, when the first flow path (labeled in attached Figure 1 above) is opened, the opening closing plate is disposed such that the communication hole is located between the first flow path (labeled in attached Figure 1 above) and the third flow path (labeled in attached Figure 1 above).
Regarding Claim 12, Hackert et al. teaches:
12. The cleaner station of claim 11, wherein a shape of the communication hole (intake holes into shut-off apparatus 10E, Figure 1) corresponds to a shape (shown in Figure 1 above) of an end of the first flow path (labeled in attached Figure 1 above).
Regarding Claim 13, Hackert et al. teaches:
13. The cleaner station of claim 11, wherein, when the second flow path (labeled in attached Figure 1 above) is opened, the opening closing plate (shut-off flap or butterfly, Paragraph [0108]) is disposed such that the communication hole (intake holes into shut-off apparatus 10E, Figure 1) is positioned away (shown in Figure 1 above) from the first flow path (labeled in attached Figure 1 above) and the third flow path (labeled in attached Figure 1 above).
Regarding Claim 18, Hackert et al. teaches:
18. The cleaner station of claim 1, wherein the first vacuum cleaner (second cleaning device 30) is a manual vacuum cleaner (upright vacuum, Figure 1) and the second vacuum cleaner (first cleaning device 20) is a robotic vacuum cleaner (robotic vacuum, Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 19, Hackert et al. teaches:
19. The cleaner station of claim 1, wherein the first station (head module 50) is provided on an upper portion of the cleaner station (base station 10)(shown in Figure 1), and the second station (bottom module 40) is provided on a lower portion of the cleaner station (shown in Figure 1).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hackert et al. US 2020/0329933 (hereafter Hackert et al.) in view of Oh et al. US 2005/0229554 (hereafter Oh et al.).
Regarding Claim 4, Hackert et al. teaches:
4. The cleaner station of claim 2,
wherein the first station (head module 50) includes a separated space (front side 50C) that receives a suction tube (labeled in attached Figure 1 above) of the first vacuum cleaner (second cleaning device 30), and
wherein the first vacuum cleaner includes a first dust bin (collection container 30C, Oh et al. – first dust collecting chamber 130b) and a second dust bin (see discussion below, Oh et al. – second dust collecting chamber 140b) which are provided on respective sides of the suction tube (Oh et al. – Figure 4) of the first vacuum cleaner, and the first station includes a first holder and a second holder (see discussion below) positioned at corresponding sides of the separated space to receive, respectively, the first dust bin and the second dust bin.
Hackert et al. US 2020/0329933 discloses an upright vacuum cleaner (second cleaning device 30) with a single collection container 50G. Therefore, Hackert et al. discloses a single fluidic connection 50F that is configured to evacuate the debris and collect it into a filter 50H. Hackert et al. does not disclose that the vacuum cleaner includes a first and second dust bin. The Oh et al. reference discloses an upright vacuum cleaner that employs a cyclone dust collecting apparatus with two cyclone dust collecting chambers. Therefore, the Oh et al. device contains two separate chambers that would need to be emptied. In a scenario where it is desirable for an upright vacuum cleaner taught by Oh et al. be used on the Hackert et al. device, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Hackert et al. device to include a first and second holder that fluidically connect to the first and second dust bins allowing both dust bins to be simultaneously emptied by the Hackert et al. device.
Regarding Claim 5, Hackert et al. teaches:
5. The cleaner station of claim 4,
wherein the first station (head module 50) includes a plurality of the first suction ports (Oh et al. – connected to first dust collecting chamber 130b and second dust collecting chamber 140b) that are provided at the first holder and the second holder (see discussion below), and
wherein the first flow path includes a Y-shaped flow path having ends that are respectively connected to the first suction ports that are provided at the holder and the second holder of the first station (see discussion below).
As previously presented in Claim 4, it would have been obvious for the Hackert et al. device to be modified to have two suction ports at the first holder and second holder positioned to fluidically connect to the two different dust collecting chambers of an upright vacuum cleaner like the Oh et al. device allowing the dust to be simultaneously emptied. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the flow from the first and second ports so that they flow into a Y-shaped flow path that converts the two single flow paths into a single flow path as identified as the first flow path in Figure 1 above toward the filter 50H. Hackert et al. discloses that use of a Y-shaped duct connection at shut-off apparatus 10E that provides evidence that converting multiple ducts into one using a Y-shaped flow path is common knowledge in the art at the time of filing.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hackert et al. US 2020/0329933 (hereafter Hackert et al.) in view of Luger US 4,718,457 (hereafter Luger).
Regarding Claim 14, Hackert et al. teaches:
14. The cleaner station of claim 3,
wherein the flow path switch (shut-off apparatus 10E, Luger – diverter valve, Title) includes:
a seal (flap of shut off apparatus 10e shown in Figure 1, Luger – paddle assembly 23 comprising seals 25 and 26, Figure 1) which is selectively coupled to the first flow path (labeled in attached Figure 1 above, Luger – flow path through valve seat 33 and branch 4, Figure 1) or the second flow path and closes the first flow path or the second flow path (labeled in attached Figure 1 above, Luger – flow path through valve seat 32 and branch 3, Figure 1); and
a link (Luger - shaft 13 which mechanically links the paddle assembly inside the pipe to the actuator outside the pipe, Figures 1-3) which is connected to the seal and rotates the seal, and
wherein the seal has a cross-section area larger than those of ends of the first flow path and the second flow path (Luger - as shown Figure 1, paddle assembly 23 comprising seals 25 and 26 are sized to match tapered seat surface 36 and 38 which are smaller than the cross-section area of the paddle assembly as shown in Figure 1).
Hackert et al. shows a shut-off apparatus 10E in Figure 1 that as taught in Paragraph [0108] that selectively creates a fluid connection between the dust inlet and either the first flow path or second flow path with a rotatable flap. Hackert et al. does not provide significant structural details regarding the shut-off apparatus therefore one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would need to turn to the prior art for the structural details of a similar device. The reference Luger teaches a diverter valve that has a “Y” shaped arrangement similar to the shut-off apparatus 10E taught by Hackert et al. Luger shows in Figures 1-3, a paddle assembly 23 that is mechanically actuated by a motor that allows the selection of either pipe 3 or pipe 4 to be fluidically connected to pipe 2. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shut-off apparatus 10E of the Hackert et al. device to employ the structural features of the diverter valve taught by Luger with the motivation to allow the valve to actually function as disclosed by Hackert et al.
Regarding Claim 15, Hackert et al. teaches:
15. The cleaner station of claim 14, wherein the seal (flap of shut off apparatus 10e shown in Figure 1, Luger – paddle assembly 23 comprising seals 25 and 26, Figure 1) remains coupled to one of the first flow path (labeled in attached Figure 1 above, Luger – flow path through valve seat 33 and branch 4, Figure 1) or the second flow path (labeled in attached Figure 1 above, Luger – flow path through valve seat 32 and branch 3, Figure 1) during operation of the suction motor (working machine 50J)(Figure 1 and Paragraph [0108]).
Regarding Claim 16, Hackert et al. teaches:
16. The cleaner station of claim 14,
wherein the flow path switch (shut-off apparatus 10E, Luger – diverter valve, Title) further includes:
a link housing (Luger - housing 1) to which the link fixedly coupled (Luger - Figures 1 and 2); and
a switching motor (Luger – electric motor, Column 2, Line 66 to Column 3, Line 2) which provides power for rotating the seal (Luger – Column 3, Lines 11-23), and
wherein the seal (flap of shut off apparatus 10e shown in Figure 1, Luger – paddle assembly 23 comprising seals 25 and 26, Figure 1) includes at least one partition (Luger - hub 24B) which sets a rotatable region of the link (Luger – allows fixed connection to shaft 13).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hackert et al. US 2020/0329933 (hereafter Hackert et al.) in view of Luger US 4,718,457 (hereafter Luger).
Regarding Claim 17, Hackert et al. teaches:
17. The cleaner station of claim 1, further comprising at least one of a saw or a blade (Lee – rotating body 310, see discussion below) which cuts foreign substances sucked through the first suction port or the second suction port (fluidic connection 40F or 50F).
Hackert et al. discloses a docking station for emptying an upright cleaner and a robot cleaner that requires ducts and the dust filter be protected from blockage for proper long term operation. The reference Lee discloses a cutting unit device intended to be installed inside a suction hose and configured to be rotated by the moving air to cut foreign matter with a rotating blade. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify both the first and second air flow pathways of the Hackert et al. device to include a cutting device as taught by Lee with the motivation to cut foreign matter into smaller pieces to reduce the chance of duct blockage to improve the collection efficiency.
Response to Arguments
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s arguments with amendments, filed June 16, 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s) of Claim 1-19 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments, the Examiner has added zoomed in Figure 1 and several paragraph quotations from Hackert et al. that specifically disclose the newly amended claim language.
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 extension fee 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 MARC CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30am-3:30pm.
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 on (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.
/MARC CARLSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights