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 .
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “traction arrangement” and “docking interface” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim 1 recites:
“a traction arrangement”. This limitation is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as a pair of rolling elements with a tracked drive system and equivalents thereof, to accomplish the claimed function (See at least [Pg. 3, Lines 4-5& pg. 10, Lines 6-8] of the specifications of the instant application); and
“a docking interface for receiving a handheld vacuum cleaner” This limitation is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as a docking portion adapted to accept a handheld vacuum with a removable dock insert and equivalents thereof, to accomplish the claimed function (See at least [Pg. 13, Lines 1-3 & Pg. 15 ,Line 21-24] of the specifications of the instant application).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1-2, 4-6, 12, 14, and 17-18 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gong (CN 206403702 U, previously presented) in view of King (US 2019/0183306, previously presented).
Regarding Claim 1, Gong teaches A vacuum cleaning system (Fig. 1) comprising:
a robotic unit (Fig. 2) comprising a main body (Ref. A, [0067], Fig. 1), a traction arrangement (Ref. A4, Fig. 3), and a docking interface (Ref. A141&A111, Fig. 3) for receiving a handheld vacuum cleaner (Ref. B, Fig. 1),
a handheld vacuum cleaner (Ref. B, Fig. 1) configured to be docked with the docking interface (Fig. 2), wherein the handheld vacuum cleaner comprises a main body (Ref. B1, Fig. 5,[0034]) from which extends a battery pack (Ref. B13, Fig. 4-5),
wherein, when the handheld vacuum cleaner is docked with the docking interface (Fig. 9), it is configured such that the battery pack is spaced apart and extends over a top of at least part of the main body of the robotic unit (Fig. 9 shows the battery pack (B13) is spaced from and extends over a top of at least part of the main body of the robotic unit as the docking interface (A141) is between the battery pack (B13) and main body).
Gong fails to explicitly teach the handheld vacuum cleaner comprising a vacuum motor for drawing air through the suction flow path. King teaches a vacuum cleaning system with a handheld vacuum and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. King teaches a handheld vacuum cleaner (Ref. 20, Fig. 2) comprising a vacuum motor and impeller ([0092]) for drawing air through the suction flow path ([0092]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the handheld vacuum impeller, as taught by Gong, with a vacuum motor to rotate the impeller, as taught by King, as a simple substitution of a known element to draw air through a vacuum and to provide a greater suction force and more effectively clean surfaces.
Regarding Claim 2, Gong as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Gong further teaches wherein the battery pack (B13) is supported in a cantilevered arrangement (Examiner notes cantilevered as supported on one side, the Fig. 5 shows the battery is supported on the top side and unsupported on the right side of Fig. 9).
Regarding Claim 4, Gong as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein the handheld vacuum cleaner has a pistol grip (Ref. B11, Fig. 5), wherein the vacuum motor is located on one end of the pistol grip, and the battery pack is located at the other end of the pistol grip (Fig. 4 of King).
Regarding Claim 5, Gong as modified teaches the limitations of claim 4, as described above, and further teaches wherein the handheld vacuum cleaner has a longitudinal axis (See annotated Fig. 4 below) along which a suction nozzle (Ref. B23, Fig. 4) is oriented (Fig. 4 shows the longitudinal axis when the vacuum cleaner is held in a vertical orientation), and wherein the handheld vacuum cleaner is mounted to the docking interface so that the longitudinal axis extends transversely to a ground plane defined by the traction arrangement (Fig. 9).
PNG
media_image1.png
1007
804
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 6, Gong as modified teaches the limitations of claim 5, as described above, and further teaches wherein the pistol grip extends transversely to the longitudinal axis of the handheld vacuum cleaner (Fig. 4 annotated above).
Regarding Claim 12, Gong as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Gong further teaches wherein the main body (Ref. A, Fig. 1) of the robotic unit has opposite first and second ends (Fig. 3, top and bottom surfaces of the main body), wherein the docking interface is provided at the first end (Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 14, Gong as modified teaches the limitations of claim 13, as described above, and Gong further teaches wherein the handheld vacuum cleaner has a suction nozzle (Ref. B23, fig. 10), and wherein when the handheld vacuum cleaner is docked with the docking interface, the suction nozzle is disposed beyond the rolling axis (See annotated Fig. 3 below) in a direction towards the first end (Fig. 9).
PNG
media_image2.png
386
634
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 17, Gong as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Gong further teaches wherein the robotic unit further comprises a cleaner head (Ref. A3&23, fig. 3), wherein the cleaner head is extended from an end of the main body (Fig. 3&9) in a first direction (See annotated Fig 3 above), and wherein when the handheld vacuum cleaner is docked with the docking interface, an external surface of the battery pack (Fig. 9 bottom of the battery pack) is oriented so as to face in the first direction (Fig. 9).
Regarding Claim 18, Gong as modified teaches the limitations of claim 17, as described above, and Gong further teaches wherein the external surface is oriented opposite to a pistol grip of the handheld vacuum cleaner (fig. 9).
Claim 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong as modified as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Song (US 2020/0001468, previously presented).
Regarding Claim 7, Gong as modified teaches the limitations of claim 4, as described above, and Gong further teaches wherein the traction arrangement includes a pair of rolling elements (Ref. A4, Fig. 3, [0070]) spaced apart along a rolling axis (Fig. 3 the axis into the page at the center of the wheels (A4), [0070] describes the wheels spaced apart on a left and right side), and wherein the battery pack extends over the rolling axis, and wherein the docking interface is provided on a first side of the rolling axis (Fig. 9, back side of rolling axis).
Gong fails to explicitly teach wherein an articulated arm extends from the robotic unit from a position on a second side of the rolling axis. Song teaches a vacuum cleaning system with a robotic vacuum cleaner with an articulated arm and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor of vacuum cleaning systems. Song teaches a robotic unit (Ref. 100, Fig. 1, [0044]) comprising traction arrangement (Ref. 130, Fig. 1, [0047]), and an articulated arm (Ref. 160, Fig. 3, [0062]), wherein an articulated arm extends from the robotic unit from a position on a second side of the traction arrangement (Fig. 1-3, show the articulated arm extending from the front side of the rolling axis/traction arrangement). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the second side (front side) of the robotic unit, as taught by Gong, to have an articulated arm, as taught by Song, to clean hard to reach places such as under the sofa ([0103], Fig. 9).
Regarding Claim 8, Gong as modified teaches the limitations of claim 7, as described above, and Gong further teaches wherein, when the handheld vacuum cleaner is mounted on the docking interface (Fig. 2 & 9), each of the pistol grip and the articulated arm extends in a first direction (Fig. 2 shows the pistol grip extending towards the front of the robotic unit when in use which would be the same as the articulated arm).
Regarding Claim 9, Gong as modified teaches the limitations of claim 8, as described above, and given the teachings of the articulated arm of song at the front of the robotic unit, Gong as modified further teaches wherein the first direction is a forward driving direction of the robotic unit (Fig. 2 shows the pistol grip extending towards the front of the robotic unit which would be the same as the articulated arm).
Claims 1-5, 10-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Ko (US 2012/0189507, previously presented) in view of King (US 2019/0183306, previously presented).
Regarding Claim 1, Ko teaches A vacuum cleaning system (Fig. 1) comprising:
a robotic unit (Ref. 10, Fig. 1) comprising a main body (Ref. 11, Fig. 1), a traction arrangement (Ref. 13, Fig. 2), and a docking interface (Ref. 20, Fig. 3) for receiving a handheld vacuum cleaner (Ref. 30, Fig. 3),
a handheld vacuum cleaner (Ref. 30, Fig. 3) configured to be docked with the docking interface (Fig. 4), the handheld vacuum cleaner comprising a suction flow path defined by the robotic unit when docked with the docking interface (Fig. 4 shows the robotic unit defining the suction path by making it up and down through the robotic unit where the docking interface is)
wherein, when the handheld vacuum cleaner is docked with the docking interface (Fig. 4), it is configured such that the power portion (top portion of handheld vacuum) is spaced apart from and extends over the top of at least part of the main body of the robotic unit (Fig. 4).
Ko fails to explicitly teach the handheld vacuum cleaner comprising a vacuum motor for drawing air through a suction flow path defined by the robotic unit when docked with the docking interface, wherein the handheld vacuum cleaner comprises a main body from which extends a battery pack. King teaches a vacuum cleaning system with a handheld vacuum and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. King teaches a handheld vacuum cleaner (Ref. 20, Fig. 2) comprising a vacuum motor and impeller ([0092]) for drawing air through the suction flow path ([0092]), wherein the handheld vacuum cleaner comprises a main body (Ref. 30, Fig. 2,[0099]) from which extends a battery pack (Ref. 32, Fig. 2, [0098]). Given the teachings of Ko that the external coupling device is not limited to only this vacuum cleaner but other devices, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the handheld vacuum, as taught by Ko, with the handheld vacuum cleaner with a main body, motor, and battery pack, as taught by King, as a simple substitution of a known element to draw air through a vacuum and to provide a greater suction force and more effectively clean surfaces.
Regarding Claim 2, Ko as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and King further teaches wherein the battery pack is supported in a cantilevered arrangement (Examiner notes cantilevered as supported on one side, the Fig. 5 shows the battery is supported on the bottom side and cantilevered from there).
Regarding Claim 3, Ko as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Ko further teaches wherein the traction arrangement includes a pair of rolling elements (Ref. 133, Fig. 2, [0019]) spaced apart along a rolling axis (Fig. 2 annotated below), and wherein the battery pack extends over the rolling axis (Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image3.png
570
762
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, Ko as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and given the teachings of substituting the handheld vacuum cleaner, as taught by Ko, with the handheld vacuum cleaner, as taught by King, King further teaches wherein the handheld vacuum cleaner has a pistol grip (Ref. 22, Fig. 2, [0096]), wherein the vacuum motor is located on one end of the pistol grip, and the battery pack is located at the other end of the pistol grip (Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 5, Ko as modified teaches the limitations of claim 4, as described above, and Ko further teaches wherein the handheld vacuum cleaner (30) has a longitudinal axis (See annotated Fig. 4 below) along which a suction nozzle is oriented (Fig. 4), and wherein the handheld vacuum cleaner is mounted to the docking interface so that the longitudinal axis extends transversely to a ground plane defined by the traction arrangement (Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image4.png
458
374
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 10, Ko as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and given the teaching of the handheld vacuum cleaner of King, Ko as modified further teaches wherein the robotic unit comprises a battery pack (Fig. 3 annotated below, and [0019] describes an electrically connected motor, Ko) which is separate to the battery pack of the handheld vacuum cleaner (Fig. 2, King and Fig. 3, Ko).
PNG
media_image5.png
898
618
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 11, Ko as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Ko further teaches wherein when the handheld vacuum cleaner is docked with the docking interface (Fig. 4), the battery pack is disposed beyond an uppermost extremity of the main body of the robotic unit (Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 12, Ko as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and given the teaching of the handheld vacuum of King into Ko, Ko as modified further teaches wherein the main body (Ref. 10, Fig. 1) of the robotic unit has opposite first (Fig. 4 bottom surface) and second ends (Fig. 4 top surface), wherein the docking interface is provided at the first end (Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 13, Ko as modified teaches the limitations of claim 12, as described above, and given the teaching of the handheld vacuum of King into Ko, Ko as modified further teaches wherein the traction arrangement includes a pair of rolling elements (Ref. 133, Fig. 4) spaced apart along a rolling axis (See annotated Fig. 2 below), and wherein when the handheld vacuum cleaner is docked with the docking interface (Fig. 4), the battery pack is disposed beyond the rolling axis in a direction towards the second end (Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image6.png
456
572
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 14, Ko as modified teaches the limitations of claim 12, as described above, and given the teaching of the handheld vacuum of King into Ko, Ko as modified further teaches wherein the handheld vacuum cleaner has a suction nozzle (Ref. 18, connection where tube (8) meets device, fig. 1, King), and wherein when the handheld vacuum cleaner is docked with the docking interface, the suction nozzle is disposed beyond the rolling axis in a direction towards the first end (Fig. 4 shows the suction nozzle all the way through the robotic unit past the rolling axis in a direction towards the first end (bottom surface), Ko).
Regarding Claim 15, Ko as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and given the teaching of the handheld vacuum of King into Ko, Ko further teaches wherein the traction arrangement includes a pair of rolling elements (Ref. 133, Fig. 4, Ko) spaced apart along a rolling axis (See annotated Fig. 2 above, Ko), and wherein an imaginary plane (Fig. 4 annotated below, Ko) intersects with the grip when the handheld vacuum cleaner is docked with the docking interface (Fig. 4, Ko), the imaginary plane being perpendicular to a ground plane and aligned on the rolling axis (Fig. 4, Ko). King further teaches wherein the handheld vacuum cleaner includes a pistol grip (Ref. 22, Fig. 2, King).
PNG
media_image7.png
714
672
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 16, Ko as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and given the teaching of the handheld vacuum of King into Ko, Ko as modified further teaches wherein the pistol grip is disposed beyond an uppermost extremity of a main body (Fig. 4 shows the uppermost extremity as the top surface of the main body) of the robotic unit in a direction normal to the ground plane (Fig. 4, Ko).
Regarding Claim 19, Ko as modified teaches the limitations of claim 5, as described above, and Ko further teaches wherein the handheld vacuum cleaner (30) is mounted to the docking interface so that the longitudinal axis extends perpendicularly to the ground plane (Fig. 5 annotated below).
PNG
media_image4.png
458
374
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Examiner acknowledges applicant’s amendments to the specifications and has withdrawn the specification objections.
Examiner acknowledges applicant’s amendments to the claims and has withdrawn the 35 USC 112(b) rejection.
Applicant's arguments filed 30 October, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has amended claim 1 thereby changing the scope of the claim necessitating a new grounds of rejection and reinterpretation of the prior art. Applicant’s arguments in regards to claim 1 that Gong fails to teach the battery pack is not spaced apart from and extends over the top off at least part of the main body of the robotic unit have been fully considered and is not considered persuasive. Examiner has applied Gong to the 35 USC 103 rejection above. Gong teaches wherein, when the handheld vacuum cleaner is docked with the docking interface (Fig. 9), it is configured such that the battery pack is spaced apart and extends over a top of at least part of the main body of the robotic unit (Fig. 9 shows the battery pack (B13) is spaced from and extends over a top of at least part of the main body of the robotic unit as the docking interface (A141) is between the battery pack (B13) and main body). If applicant intends for the battery pack to be above the main body of the robotic unit such a limitation is not required.
Applicant’s arguments in regards to claim 1 that Ko and King fail to teach a suction flow path defined by the robotic unit have been fully considered and is not considered persuasive. Examiner has applied Ko and King to the 35 USC 103 rejection above. Ko teaches a handheld vacuum cleaner (Ref. 30, Fig. 3) configured to be docked with the docking interface (Fig. 4), the handheld vacuum cleaner comprising a suction flow path defined by the robotic unit when docked with the docking interface (Fig. 4 shows the robotic unit defining the suction path by making it up and down through the robotic unit where the docking interface is). Given that the robotic unit designates the orientation of the vacuum cleaner it would define the suction flow path created by the handheld vacuum cleaner. If applicant intends for the suction flow path of the handheld vacuum cleaner to be connected or routed through the robotic unit such a limitation is not required.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DANA L POON whose telephone number is (571)272-6164. The examiner can normally be reached on General: 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, David Posigian can be reached on (313) 446-6546. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANA LEE POON/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723