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.
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 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 claims 1 and 13.
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.
Claims 1 and 13 recites:
“a traction arrangement”. This limitation is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as either circular wheels or rolling elements and a track drive system and equivalents thereof, to accomplish the claimed function (See at least [Pg. 10, Lines 3-6] 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 either a support or dock to receive a vacuum and a docking interface and equivalents thereof, to accomplish the claimed function (See at least [Pg. 10, Lines 5-6 & 18-19] of the specifications of the instant application).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-2, 4, 7-10, 14-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsusaka (2010/0256812, previously presented) in view of Ko (US 2012/0189507, previously presented) and Shen (CN209574563U).
Regarding Claim 1, Tsusaka teaches A surface treating system (Fig. 1) comprising:
a robotic unit (Ref. 1, Fig. 1) comprising a main body (Ref. 19, Fig. 1), a traction arrangement (Ref. 6, Fig. 1), and an articulated arm (Ref. 5, Fig. 1),
wherein the articulated arm includes an upper arm section (See annotated Fig. 1 below) and a lower arm section (See annotated Fig. 1 below), wherein the upper arm section is attached to the main body at a shoulder joint (See annotated Fig. 1 below) ) and wherein the lower arm section is attached to the upper arm section at an elbow joint (See annotated Fig. 1 below), and wherein an end effector (Ref. 8, top connector, Fig. 1) is defined at a distal end of the lower arm section (Ref. 30, Fig. 1),
wherein the shoulder joint and the elbow joint are configured such that the upper arm section and the lower arm section are pivotable in a generally vertical plane relative to a ground plane (Ref. 10, Fig. 2A) defined by the traction arrangement (Fig. 2A-B show the joints would move vertically relative to the ground plane),
wherein the articulated arm is movable to a stowed position (Fig. 2A), in which position no part of the articulated arm extends above an uppermost extremity of the robotic unit (Fig. 2A), and
wherein the elbow joint defines a pivot axis (Fig. 1 annotated below)
Tsusaka further fails to teach wherein the main body of the robotic unit includes a docking interface for receiving a handheld vacuum cleaner in a releasable engagement. Ko teaches a surface treatment system with a robotic unit and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Ko teaches a robotic unit (Ref. 10, Fig. 1, [0018]) comprising a main body (Ref. 11&12, Fig. 3), a traction arrangement (Ref. 13, Fig. 2), a handheld vacuum cleaner (Ref. 30, fig. 3) and wherein the main body of the robotic unit includes a docking interface (Ref. 20, Fig. 3) for receiving the handheld vacuum cleaner in releasable engagement (Fig. 1-3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the main body, as taught by Tsusaka, with a docking interface to receive a handheld vacuum, as taught by Ko, to provide the user further function of manual dust and debris removal to surfaces where the robot vacuum cleaner cannot reach.
Tsusaka as modified fails to explicitly teach wherein when the articulated arm is in the stowed position, the pivot axis is located beyond the main body in a direction normal to the ground plane. Shen teaches a surface treating system with a robotic unit with a main body, a traction unit, and an articulated arm and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Shen teaches A surface treating system (Fig. 1) comprising:
a robotic unit (Fig. 1) comprising a main body (Ref. 1, Fig. 1), a traction arrangement (Ref. 28, Fig. 1), and an articulated arm (Ref. 2, Fig. 1),
wherein the articulated arm includes an upper arm section (Ref. 221, Fig. 1) and a lower arm section (Ref. 222, Fig. 1), wherein the upper arm section is attached to the main body at a shoulder joint (Ref. 2241, Fig. 1) and wherein the lower arm section is attached to the upper arm section at an elbow joint (Fig. 1 shows the upper and lower points at an elbow joint), and wherein an end effector (Ref. 21, Fig. 1) is defined at a distal end of the lower arm section (Fig. 1), and
wherein the elbow joint defines a pivot axis (Fig. 1), and wherein when the articulated arm is in a stowed position (Fig. 1), the pivot axis is located beyond the main body in a direction normal to the ground plane (Fig. 1&2 show the elbow joint is above the main body in a normal direction to the ground plane due to the length of the upper and lower arm sections). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the articulated arm, as taught by Tsusaka as modified, to make the upper and lower arm sections longer allowing the pivot axis of the elbow joint located beyond the main body in a direction normal to the ground plane in the stowed position, as taught by Shen, to allow for greater range of motion and greater cleaning perimeters of the cleaning head to be capable of reaching below the body during use (Fig. 2, Shen).
PNG
media_image1.png
361
622
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Tsusaka as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Tsusaka further teaches wherein the traction arrangement comprises a pair of rolling elements (Ref. 6, Fig. 1, [0161]) each of which defines a matching circumferential shape (fig. 2A), wherein the pair of rolling elements are spaced apart along a rolling axis (Fig. 2A, rolling axis is centered in the middle of the wheels) such that the circumferential shapes of the rolling elements define an imaginary cylindrical volume (Fig. 2A) between them with a cross sectional area that matches the circumferential shape, wherein the main body is configured so as not to extend outside of the imaginary cylindrical volume (Fig. 1 shows the body sits between the wheels).
Regarding Claim 4, Tsusaka as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Ko further teaches wherein the handheld vacuum cleaner has a longitudinal axis (Fig. 3 annotated below) along which a suction nozzle (Ref. 24, Fig. 3) and a vacuum motor are oriented, wherein the handheld vacuum cleaner is mounted to the docking interface so that the longitudinal axis extends transversely (Fig. 3), and optionally perpendicularly, to the ground plane defined by the traction arrangement (Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image2.png
898
618
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 7, Tsusaka as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Ko further teaches wherein the docking interface is defined on a first side of the traction arrangement (Fig. 1, top side).
Regarding Claim 8, Tsusaka as modified teaches the limitations of claim 7, as described above, and Tsusaka further teaches wherein the articulated arm extends from the main body on a second side of the traction arrangement (Fig. 1, right side is the second side).
Regarding Claim 9, Tsusaka as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and given the teachings of the handheld vacuum cleaner of Ko onto the robotic unit, Tsusaka as modified further teaches wherein the upper extremity of the robotic unit is defined by the handheld vacuum cleaner (Fig. 1 of Ko shows the upper most extremity being the handle of the vacuum).
Regarding Claim 10, Tsusaka as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and given the teaching of the handheld vacuum cleaner as the upper most extremity on the robotic unit, Tsusaka as modified further teaches wherein the articulated arm is movable from the stowed position (Fig. 2A) to a deployed position (Fig. 2B), during which movement no part of the articulated arm extends above the uppermost extremity of the robotic unit (Fig. 2B shows the arm units above the main body but would be below the handheld vacuum cleaner that sticks straight up from the main body unit).
Regarding Claim 14, Tsusaka as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Tsusaka further teaches wherein when the articulated arm is in the stowed position (Fig. 2A, note examiner interprets the stowed position as any position to make the arm more compact in any direction), the upper arm section extends in a direction that is perpendicular to the ground plane (Fig. 1-2A shows the upper arm is three-dimensional and a dimension of the upper arm would extend perpendicular to the ground plane, if applicant intends for the longitudinal axis of the upper arm section of the ground plane such a limitation is not required).
Regarding Claim 15, Song as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and given the teaching of the handheld vacuum cleaner of Ko onto the main body, Tsusaka as modified further teaches wherein when the articulated arm is in the stowed position (Fig. 2A, note examiner interprets the stowed position as any position or direction to make the arm more compact, Tsusaka), the upper arm section is disposed adjacent the handheld vacuum cleaner (Note examiner interprets adjacent as near, Fig. 1-2A of Tsusaka shows the upper arm portion would be near the vacuum cleaner portion).
Regarding Claim 16, Tsusaka as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Tsusaka further teaches wherein the traction arrangement defines a rolling axis (See annotated Fig. 2A below) provided a first distance from the ground plane in a direction perpendicular (See annotated Fig. 2A below) thereto, wherein the shoulder joint defines a pivot axis (See annotated Fig. 2A below) provided a second distance (See annotated Fig. 2A below) from the ground plane in the direction perpendicular thereto, and wherein the second distance is larger than the first distance (Fig. 2A below).
PNG
media_image3.png
329
758
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 18, Tsusaka as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and given the teaching of the handheld vacuum cleaner of Ko onto the main body, Tsusaka as modified further teaches wherein when the articulated arm is in the stowed position (Fig. 2A, note examiner interprets the stowed position as any position or direction to make the arm more compact, Tsusaka), a longitudinal axis of the articulated arm extends in a direction perpendicular to the ground plane ([0109] of Tsusaka teaches the robot arm can move in any xyz axis and the articulated arm would be capable of extending in a direction perpendicular to the ground plane).
Regarding Claim 19, Tsusaka as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Tsusaka teaches a cleaning tool (Ref. 8&18, Fig. 1) removably attachable to the end effector ([0160], Fig. 1), wherein when the cleaning tool is attached to the end effector and when the articulated arm is in the stowed position (Fig. 1, [0160]), the cleaning tool is disposed adjacent the ground plane (Fig. 1).
Claim 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsusaka as modified as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Song (2020/0001468, previously presented).
Regarding Claim 3, Tsusaka as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the main body is generally cylindrical in shape. Song teaches a robotic vacuum cleaner and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Song teaches a robotic unit (Ref. 100, Fig. 1, [0044]) comprising a main body (Ref. 110, Fig. 1), a traction arrangement (Ref. 130, Fig. 1, [0047]), and an articulated arm (Ref. 160, Fig. 3, [0062]), wherein the main body is generally cylindrical in shape (Fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the main body, as taught by Tsusaka as modified, to be generally cylindrical in shape, as taught by Song, since such a modification would achieve the predictable result of holding dust and debris from a robotic suction arm.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsusaka as modified as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stickney (US 2012/0079671, previously presented).
Regarding Claim 5, Tsusaka as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Ko further teaches when the handheld vacuum comprises a grip (Fig. 1) and wherein, when the handheld vacuum cleaner is mounted to the docking interface (Fig. 1), the grip extends over at least a part of the main body of the robotic unit (Fig. 1). Tsusaka as modified fails to explicitly teach the handheld vacuum cleaner comprises a pistol grip. Stickney teaches a handheld vacuum to attach to different accessories and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Stickney further teaches wherein the handheld vacuum cleaner comprises a pistol grip (Ref. 35, Fig. 2, [0041]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the handheld vacuum, as taught by Song as modified, to have a pistol grip, as taught by Stickney, since such a modification would yield the predictable result of manipulating a vacuum and to further protect a user’s hand from accidental injury from collisions.
Regarding Claim 6, Tsusaka as modified teaches the limitations of claim 5, as described above, and Stickney further teaches wherein the pistol grip supports a battery pack (Ref. 17, Fig. 2) on the end thereof (Fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the handheld vacuum, as taught by Song as modified, to have a battery pack on the end of the pistol grip, as taught by Stickney, to effectively power the handheld vacuum and further protect a user’s hand from accidently injury from collisions (Fig. 1).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsusaka as modified as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Horiuchi (US 2013/0330162, previously presented).
Regarding Claim 11, Tsusaka as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the upper arm section comprises first and second arm members, wherein the first arm member is spaced from the second arm member, and wherein the lower arm section is disposed between the first and second arm members. Horiunchi teaches a robotic arm and can be considered analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem by the inventor to have an arm to manipulate a tool on the end for greater range of movement. Horiunchi further teaches wherein the upper arm section (Ref. 14a, Fig. 1) comprises first and second arm members (Fig. 1 annotated below), wherein the first arm member is spaced from the second arm member (Ref. 14h, fig. 1), and wherein the lower arm section (Ref. 14B, Fig. 1) is disposed between the first and second arm members (Fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the articulated arm, as taught by Song as modified, to have a first and second arm member, as taught by Horiuchi, to have the predictable result of manipulating a tool and to provide more stability for the arms and to provide more protection to the suction hose.
PNG
media_image4.png
464
413
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Song as modified teaches the limitations of claim 11, as described above, and Horiunchi further teaches wherein the first and second arms members are parallel (Fig. 1 annotated above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 is allowed. See previous office action filed 30 July, 2025 for the reasons for allowance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 18 February, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Tsusaka (2010/0256812, previously presented) in view of Ko (US 2012/0189507, previously presented) and Shen (CN209574563U). Tsusaka teaches A surface treating system (Fig. 1) comprising: a robotic unit (Ref. 1, Fig. 1) comprising a main body (Ref. 19, Fig. 1), a traction arrangement (Ref. 6, Fig. 1), and an articulated arm (Ref. 5, Fig. 1), wherein the articulated arm includes an upper arm section (See annotated Fig. 1 above) and a lower arm section (See annotated Fig. 1 above), wherein the upper arm section is attached to the main body at a shoulder joint (See annotated Fig. 1 above) and wherein the lower arm section is attached to the upper arm section at an elbow joint (See annotated Fig. 1 below) and wherein an end effector (Ref. 8, Fig. 1) is defined at a distal end of the lower arm section (Ref. 30, Fig. 1), wherein the shoulder joint and the elbow joint are configured such that the upper arm section and the lower arm section are pivotable in a generally vertical plane relative to a ground plane (Ref. 10, Fig. 2A) defined by the traction arrangement (Fig. 2A-B show the joints would move vertically relative to the ground plane), and wherein the articulated arm is movable to a stowed position (Fig. 2A), in which position no part of the articulated arm extends above an uppermost extremity of the robotic unit (Fig. 2A), and wherein the elbow joint defines a pivot axis (Fig. 1 annotated above). Shen teaches A surface treating system (Fig. 1) comprising a robotic unit (Fig. 1) comprising a main body (Ref. 1, Fig. 1), a traction arrangement (Ref. 28, Fig. 1), and an articulated arm (Ref. 2, Fig. 1), wherein the articulated arm includes an upper arm section (Ref. 221, Fig. 1) and a lower arm section (Ref. 222, Fig. 1), wherein the upper arm section is attached to the main body at a shoulder joint (Ref. 2241, Fig. 1) and wherein the lower arm section is attached to the upper arm section at an elbow joint (Fig. 1 shows the upper and lower points at an elbow joint), and wherein an end effector (Ref. 21, Fig. 1) is defined at a distal end of the lower arm section (Fig. 1), and wherein the elbow joint defines a pivot axis (Fig. 1), and wherein when the articulated arm is in a stowed position (Fig. 1), the pivot axis is located beyond the main body in a direction normal to the ground plane (Fig. 1&2 show the elbow joint is above the main body in a normal direction to the ground plane due to the length of the upper and lower arm sections). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the articulated arm, as taught by Tsusaka as modified, to make the upper and lower arm sections longer allowing the pivot axis of the elbow joint located beyond the main body in a direction normal to the ground plane in the stowed position, as taught by Shen, to allow for greater range of motion and greater cleaning perimeters of the cleaning head to be capable of reaching below the body during use (Fig. 2, Shen).
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights