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
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 use the word “means”, “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: “cleaner system” in Claims 1-18.
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 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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beck et al. DE 102019002827 A1 (hereafter Beck et al.) in view of common knowledge.
Regarding Claim 1, Beck et al. teaches:
[Claim 1] A cleaner system (cleaning system 1) comprising:
a first cleaner (handheld vacuum cleaner 30) that includes a suction portion (floor cleaning head shown in Figure 1) which sucks dust-containing air through an extension tube (unshown tubular passage between floor cleaning head and collection container 30C) through which air flows, a suction motor (unshown suction fan that sucks debris off of floor and fluidically transports it to the collection container 30C) which generates a suction force for sucking air along the suction portion, and a dust bin (collection container 30C) which stores dust separated from the sucked air;
a first station (head module 50) that includes a housing (housing 50A) which has an inner space (inside of housing 50A shown in Figure 1) and to which the first cleaner is coupled (shown in Figure 1), a first coupling portion (fluidic connection 50F) which is formed in the housing and to which the dust bin is coupled (shown in Figure 1), and a dust collection motor (working machine 50J) which is disposed in the inner space and generates a suction force sucking the dust within the dust bin into the housing (shown in Figure 1);
a second station (base module 40) that is coupled below the first station and includes a second coupling portion (ramp-shaped foot part 40B) to which a second cleaner (vacuum robot 20) climbs; and
an imaginary plane (imaginary plane vertical and parallel to page in Figure 1 through device centerline) that includes an extension tube through-line (line through axis of unshown tubular passage between floor cleaning head and collection container 30C) passing through the extension tube in a longitudinal direction and an imaginary suction motor axial line (line through rotary axis of unshown suction fan that sucks debris off of floor and fluidically transports it to the collection container 30C) obtained by extending a rotational axis of the suction motor,
wherein the second cleaner is a cleaner that autonomously travels in an area to be cleaned (robot),
and wherein, in a state where the first cleaner is coupled to the first coupling portion and the second cleaner is coupled to the second coupling portion (shown in Figure 1), the suction motor, the dust collection motor, and the second cleaner are arranged in the order listed from the top along a long axis of the housing (when viewed from front).
Beck et al. teaches a device that provides a docking station for both a handheld and robot vacuum that is configured to empty the onboard dust bins. Beck et al. fails to disclose common knowledge details regarding the handheld cleaner comprising a suction portion in the floor cleaning head shown in Figure 1 and a suction motor configured to create a suction force that allows debris to be collected off the floor and fluidically drawn through extension tubing (or ducting) into a collection container 30C. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the Beck et al. device includes these components arranged as discussed with the motivation to operate in a manner consistent with a handheld vacuum cleaner.
Beck et al. does not provide a detailed locations for the components inside the handheld vacuum cleaner. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention locate the suction motor inside the vacuum cleaner above the battery 30A near the collection container 30G resulting in the suction motor being above the working machine 50J 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.
Regarding Claim 2, Beck et al. teaches:
[Claim 2] The cleaner system of claim 1,
wherein the first cleaner (handheld vacuum cleaner 30) further comprises a handle having a grip portion (shown in Figure 1) that is disposed in an opposite direction to the suction portion (floor cleaning head shown in Figure 1) such that a user grips the first cleaner (shown in Figure 1),
and wherein the plane (imaginary plane vertical and parallel to page in Figure 1 through device centerline) comprises an imaginary grip portion through-line (line through center of handle shown in Figure 1) that is formed in a longitudinal direction of the grip portion and passes through an inside of the grip portion.
Regarding Claim 3, Beck et al. teaches:
[Claim 3] The cleaner system of claim 1,
wherein the plane (imaginary plane vertical and parallel to page in Figure 1 through device centerline) passes through at least a portion of the first station (head module 50) in the state in which the first cleaner (handheld vacuum cleaner 30) is coupled to the first station (shown in Figure 1),
and wherein the extension tube through-line (line through axis of unshown tubular passage between floor cleaning head and collection container 30C) crosses the suction motor axial line (line through rotary axis of unshown suction fan that sucks debris off of floor and fluidically transports it to the collection container 30C).
Beck et al. does not provide a detailed locations for the components inside the handheld vacuum cleaner. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention locate the suction motor inside the vacuum cleaner with a rotation axis in any orientation desired by the designer resulting in the extension tube through-line intersecting the suction motor axis 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.
Regarding Claim 4, Beck et al. teaches:
[Claim 4] The cleaner system of claim 1, wherein the plane (imaginary plane vertical and parallel to page in Figure 1 through device centerline) passes through at least a portion of the dust collection motor (working machine 50J) in the state in which the first cleaner (handheld vacuum cleaner 30) is coupled to the first station (head module 50).
Regarding Claim 5, Beck et al. teaches:
[Claim 5] The cleaner system of claim 1, wherein the plane (imaginary plane vertical and parallel to page in Figure 1 through device centerline) comprises an imaginary dust collection motor axial line (line through rotary axis of working machine 50J – shown into and out of page in Figure 1 extends through plane) obtained by extending a rotational axis of the dust collection motor (working machine 50J).
Regarding Claim 6, Beck et al. teaches:
[Claim 6] The cleaner system of claim 1, further comprising an imaginary second cleaner centerline (vertical line through center of vacuum robot 20) which passes through a center of gravity of the second cleaner (vacuum robot 20) and is orthogonal to a bottom surface of the second cleaner (orthogonal to floor 3 as shown in Figure 1), wherein, when the second cleaner is coupled to the second station (shown in Figure 1), the second cleaner centerline is disposed within a width of the dust collection motor (working machine 50J) as the first station is viewed from the front (since working machine has a width into and out of page and center of gravity of vacuum robot 20 will be approximately in the center).
Regarding Claim 7, Beck et al. teaches:
[Claim 7] The cleaner system of claim 1, wherein a center of gravity of the second cleaner (vacuum robot 20) is disposed behind a center of gravity of the suction motor (unshown suction fan that sucks debris off of floor and fluidically transports it to the collection container 30C) in the state where the first cleaner (handheld vacuum cleaner 30) is coupled to the first station (head module 50) and the second cleaner (vacuum robot 20) is coupled to the second station (base module 40)(shown in attached Figure 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
750
516
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 8, Beck et al. teaches:
[Claim 8] The cleaner system of claim 1, wherein a center of gravity of the second cleaner (vacuum robot 20) is disposed between a center of gravity of the suction motor (unshown suction fan that sucks debris off of floor and fluidically transports it to the collection container 30C) and a center of gravity of the dust collection motor (working machine 50J) in the state where the first cleaner (handheld vacuum cleaner 30) is coupled to the first station (head module 50) and the second cleaner (vacuum robot 20) is coupled to the second station (base module 40)(shown in attached Figure 1 above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Regarding Claims 9-18, a search of the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest the device as claimed in the context of the entire scope of the claims. Thus, for at least the foregoing reasons, the instant invention is neither anticipated nor rendered obvious by the prior art because the device is not taught nor suggested as set forth in the entire context of the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in form PTO-892 Notice of References Cited. Specifically, the prior art references include pertinent disclosures of docking stations for handheld and robotic vacuums cleaners.
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