DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/7/2026 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that 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” in claim 1, because (A) the term “arrangement” is a generic placeholder, see above; (B) “defining a ground plane” designates a function performed by the arrangement, and (C) no additional structure is specified, to support the claimed function of “defining a ground plane” – in effect the language is equivalent to a predetermined means for defining a ground plane. Examiner is interpreting “traction arrangement” to be a pair of wheels based on the discussion of “traction arrangement” in at least page 9 lines 14-23 of Applicant’s specification.
“Clutch mechanism” in claim 2, because (A) the term “mechanism” is a generic placeholder, see above; (B) “control the movement of the lower arm section” designates a function performed by the mechanism, and (C) no additional structure is specified, to support the claimed function of “control the movement of the lower arm section” – in effect the language is equivalent to a predetermined means for controlling the movement of the lower arm section. Examiner is interpreting “clutch mechanism” to be any generic clutch based on Figs. 12-13 of Applicant’s drawings and page 17 line 34 through page 18 line 24 of Applicant’s specification.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” or a generic placeholder but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“Robotic unit” in claims 1 and 8.
“Drive mechanism” in claims 8-9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 6, 8, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen et al. (CN209574563U), attached as a PDF in office action filed 6/17/2025 and hereinafter referred to as Shen, in view of Bassett (EP1661502B1), attached as a PDF.
Regarding claim 1, Shen discloses a vacuum cleaning system comprising: a robotic unit (every element shown in Figs. 1 and 2) comprising a main body (Fig. 1 elements 1 and 2241), a traction arrangement (Fig. 2 elements 28) defining a ground plane (see annotated Fig. 2 below), and an articulated arm (Fig. 1 elements 221 and 222), wherein the articulated arm comprises an upper arm section (Fig. 1 element 221) and a lower arm section (Fig. 1 element 222 and the structure which provides the “ball joint” type connection between the articulated arm and the end effector (i.e. cleaning head)), wherein the upper arm section is attached to the main body at a shoulder joint (Fig. 1 elements 2241, where the shoulder joint is a subset of the main body), and wherein the lower arm section is attached to the upper arm section at an elbow joint (Fig. 2 element 223), and wherein an end effector (Fig. 1 element 21) is defined at a distal end of the lower arm section (Fig. 1, 0032 and 0034, where the embodiment where a direct movable connection between the distal end of the lower arm section and the end effector is being used), and wherein the articulated arm is configured such that the end effector is movable angularly about a first axis (see annotated Fig. 2 below) with respect to the elbow joint (0034, where "a movable connection between the cleaning head 21 and the support arm assembly 22 may be a configuration in which the cleaning head 21 and the support arm assembly 22 are disposed similar to a ball joint, thereby achieving a direct movable connection therebetween" means that the end effector is movable angularly about the first axis with respect to the elbow joint since a ball joint provides three degrees of freedom and the structure which makes up the ball joint type connection being a part of the lower arm section means that the articulated arm is configured to allow the end effector to be movable in this way) and is movable linearly along a second axis (see annotated Fig. 2 below) with respect to the elbow joint (0035, where the lower arm section being "extendable and retractable" means that the lower arm portion would move the end effector linearly along the second axis with respect to the elbow joint), wherein the first axis is the same as the second axis (see annotated Fig. 2 below, 0034, where examiner notes that when the articulated arm is directly connected to the end effector, the first and second axis will be going through the center of the end effector), wherein the second axis extends along the lower arm section (see annotated Fig. 2 below).
Shen fails to disclose the lower arm section includes a fixed portion and an extensible portion, and wherein the lower arm section is configured so that the extensible portion is able to extend and withdraw telescopically, along the second axis, with respect to the fixed portion in one mode of operation and is able to rotate about the second axis in another mode of operation.
Bassett is also concerned with vacuum cleaning system and teaches an arm section includes a fixed portion (Fig. 2 element 16) and an extensible portion (Fig. 2 element 17), and wherein the arm section is configured so that the extensible portion is able to extend and withdraw telescopically with respect to the fixed portion (0023). Pursuant of MPEP 2144.06-II, it has been held obvious to substitute equivalents for the same purpose. Shen discloses the invention except that the structure which allows for extension and retraction is not specified instead of the structure which allows for extension and retraction being a fixed portion and an extensible portion that moves telescopically with respect to the fixed portion. Hiroshi shows that a structure which allows for extension and retraction being a fixed portion and an extensible portion that moves telescopically with respect to the fixed portion is an equivalent structure known in the art. Therefore, because these extensible/retractable types were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to substitute a structure which allows for extension and retraction being a fixed portion and an extensible portion that moves telescopically with respect to the fixed portion for a structure which allows for extension and retraction which is not specified.
Modifying the vacuum cleaning system of Shen with the teachings of Bassett then yields the lower arm section includes a fixed portion (Bassett, Fig. 2 element 16) and an extensible portion (Bassett, Fig. 2 element 17) that moves along the second axis with respect to the fixed portion (Bassett, 0023), and wherein the lower arm section is configured so that the extensible portion is able to extend and withdraw telescopically, along the second axis, in one mode of operation (Bassett, 0027-0030, where the sleeve (25) being pulled back or pushed forward corresponds to one mode of operation) and is able to rotate about the arm axis in another mode of operation (Bassett, where the vacuum cleaning system not being held at element 23 (for example being held at the upper portion of element 16) and then being manually rotated about the longitudinal center axis of elements 16 and 17 (i.e. the arm axis) corresponds to another mode of operation where the extensible portion is able to rotate about the second axis).
PNG
media_image1.png
477
401
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Shen, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 3, as described above, and further discloses the lower arm section is configured such that the extensible portion extends telescopically from and withdraws telescopically into the fixed portion (Bassett, 0028-0029).
Regarding claim 8, Shen discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses a drive mechanism (Shen, Fig. 1 elements 2242 and 2232) including at least one drive motor (Shen, Fig. 1 element 2242) provided in the main body of the robotic unit (Shen, Fig. 1, 0041).
Regarding claim 16, Shen, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the extensible portion and the fixed portion form part of an air pipe through the lower arm section(Shen, 0032, where when element 22 is a “hollow structure” to allow for “dust transmission”, both the upper and lower arm sections form air pipes).
Regarding claim 17, Shen, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 16, as described above, and further discloses the air pipe is coupled to the end effector (Shen, Fig. 1, where the air pipe comprises the extensible and fixed portions, which are subsets of the lower arm section, and Fig. 1 shows the lower arm section coupled to the end effector).
Regarding claim 18, Shen, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 17, as described above, and further discloses the air pipe is rotatable, and wherein, through rotation of the air pipe, the end effector moves angularly about the first axis (Shen, see annotated Fig. 2 above, 0034, where the vacuum cleaning system can be picked up and the air pipe is able to be rotated manually, which due to the direct connection between air pipe and the end effector, when the air pipe is rotated about the first axis, the end effector also moves angularly about the first axis).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen et al. (CN209574563U), attached as a PDF in office action filed 6/17/2025 and hereinafter referred to as Shen, in view of Bassett (EP1661502B1), attached as a PDF, and in further view of Song et al. (US20200001468), hereinafter Song.
Regarding claim 4, Shen, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to disclose the extensible portion is distal from the elbow joint.
Song is also concerned with a robotic arm on a robot unit and teaches a fixed portion (Fig. 3 element 161) and an extensible portion (Fig. 3 elements 162, 163, and 164), wherein the extensible portion is distal from the elbow joint (Fig. 3 shows the extensible portion (162, 163, and 164) connected to an end effector (120), which corresponds to the end effector (21) of Shen and since the end effector of Shen is distal from the elbow joint, the extensible portion will also be distal from the elbow joint). Pursuant of MPEP 2144.06-II, it has been held obvious to substitute equivalents for the same purpose. Shen, as modified, discloses the invention except that the extensible portion is distal from the elbow joint instead not specifying whether the extensible portion is distal or proximal to the elbow joint. Song shows that the extensible portion being distal from the elbow joint is an equivalent structure known in the art (i.e. both structures allow for extension/retraction). Therefore, because these extension/retraction types were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to substitute a fixed portion and an extensible portion, wherein the extensible portion is distal from the elbow joint for a fixed portion and an extensible portion, wherein the extensible portion positioning in relation to the elbow joint is not specified.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen et al. (CN209574563U), attached as a PDF in office action filed 6/17/2025 and hereinafter referred to as Shen, in view of Bassett (EP1661502B1), attached as a PDF, and in further view of Friedrichshafen (DE202004012584U1), attached as a PDF.
Regarding claim 9, Shen, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 8, as described above, but fails to disclose the drive mechanism includes a transmission to transmit drive from the drive motor to the elbow joint.
Frierichshafen is also concerned with a robotic arm on a robot unit and teaches the drive mechanism (Fig. 2 elements 23, 24, 25, 26, and Fig. 4 elements 29 and 30) includes a transmission (Fig. 2 elements 23, 24, 25, 26, and Fig. 4 element 30) to transmit drive from the drive motor (Fig. 4 element 29) to the elbow joint (Fig. 2, where the joint defined by element 14 corresponds to an elbow joint, 0036-0038). Pursuant of MPEP 2144.06-II, it has been held obvious to substitute equivalents for the same purpose. Shen, as modified, discloses the invention except that the drive mechanism uses two motors, one to drive each joint, instead of a drive mechanism that uses a single motor and a transmission to drive each joint. Frierichshafen shows that a drive mechanism that uses a single motor and a transmission to drive each joint is an equivalent structure known in the art. Therefore, because these drive mechanism types were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to substitute a drive mechanism that uses a single motor and a transmission to drive each joint for a drive mechanism that uses two motors, one to drive each joint.
Regarding claim 10, Shen, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 9, as described above, and further discloses the transmission is housed at least in part by the upper arm section of the articulated arm (Frierichshafen, Fig. 2, where element 4 corresponds to the upper arm section and at least elements 23 and 24 are housed at least in part by the upper arm section).
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen et al. (CN209574563U), attached as a PDF in office action filed 6/17/2025 and hereinafter referred to as Shen, in view of Bassett (EP1661502B1), attached as a PDF, and in further view of Horinouchi (US20130330162).
Regarding claim 11, Shen, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to disclose the articulated arm is configured so that in a stowed position, the upper arm section and the lower arm section are substantially parallel to one another.
Horinouchi is also concerned with a robotic arm on a robot unit and teaches the articulated arm (Fig. 1 element 14) is configured so that in a stowed position (position shown in Figs. 4 and 5), the upper arm section (Fig. 1 element 14a) and the lower arm section (Fig. 1 element 14b) are substantially parallel to one another (Fig. 4). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to modify the vacuum cleaning system of Shen, as modified, to make the upper and lower arm sections be substantially parallel to one another when in a stowed position, as taught by Horinouchi, because Horinouchi teaches that having the upper and lower arm sections be substantially parallel to one another when in a stowed position provides a more compact robot (0103).
Regarding claim 12, Shen, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 11, as described above, and further discloses in the stowed position the upper arm section and the lower arm section extend in a direction that is transverse to the ground plane (Horinouchi, see annotated Fig. 5 above).
Regarding claim 13, Shen, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 12, as described above, and further discloses the upper arm section and the lower arm section extend in a direction that is perpendicular to the ground plane when in the stowed position (Horinouchi, see annotated Fig. 5 above).
Regarding claim 14, Shen, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 12, as described above, but fails to disclose in the stowed position a portion of the lower arm section is located between a pair of parallel arm members of the upper arm section.
Horinouchi is also concerned with a robotic arm on a robot unit and teaches in the stowed position a portion of the lower arm section is located between a pair of parallel arm members of the upper arm section (see annotated Fig. 1 below, 0052 and 0076). Pursuant of MPEP 2144.06-II, it has been held obvious to substitute equivalents for the same purpose. Shen, as modified, discloses the invention except that the upper arm section has a pair of parallel arms instead of the upper arm section has a single arm. Horinouchi shows that an articulated arm where the upper arm section has a pair of parallel arms is an equivalent structure known in the art (i.e. both provide movement to a lower arm section). Therefore, because these articulated arm types were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to substitute an articulated arm where the upper arm section has a pair of parallel arms for an articulated arm where the upper arm section has a single arm.
PNG
media_image2.png
553
560
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Shen, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 11, as described above, and further discloses the articulated arm is movable from the stowed position (Horinouchi, position shown in Figs. 4-5) to a fully deployed position (Shen, position shown in Fig. 2), wherein in the fully deployed position the lower arm section extends substantially parallel to the ground plane (Shen, Fig. 2, where the lower arm section is shown to be substantially parallel to the ground plane shown in annotated Fig. 2 above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: regarding claim 7, the closest arts of record, Shen et al. (CN209574563U), Bassett (EP1661502B1), and Hiroshi et al. (JPS5993287A), fail to disclose, suggest, or make obvious in combination with the additional elements or each respective claim the following features:
“the lower arm section includes a clutch mechanism to selectively control the movement of the lower arm section between rotational and extensible movement” as recited in claim 7. Examiner finds that Shen, as modified by Bassett, discloses that there are two modes of operation, one where the extensible portion is capable of telescopic movement and one where the extensible portion is capable of rotating about the second axis (see rejection of claim 1 above). Shen, as modified by Bassett, fails to disclose that there is a clutch mechanism to “selectively control the movement of the lower arm section between rotational and extensible movement”. Examiner finds that this limitation requires there to be two distinct movement types which are selectively switchable by means of the clutch mechanism. While Shen, as modified by Bassett, has both modes of operation, examiner finds that switching between the two modes of operation requires the user to switch the grip location and does not disclose using a clutch mechanism to switch between the two modes of operation. Hiroshi, relied upon in at least the Final Rejection filed 2/18/2026, teaches a clutch mechanism to selectively control movement of an element between rotational and extensible movement, but Hiroshi teaches using a single motor to switch between rotational and extensible movement as it improves over the previous solutions which required two motors, one for each mode. Examiner finds that because Shen, as modified by Bassett, does not disclose using a motor to cause rotational movement, and therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify the vacuum cleaning system of Shen, as modified by Bassett, with the teachings of Hiroshi without improper hindsight reasoning.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 filed 4/20/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on a different combination of prior art as the combination of prior art challenged by Applicant in the Arguments/Remarks.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CALEB A HOLIZNA whose telephone number is (571)272-5659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-4:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-272-4475. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/C.A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3723 /MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights