DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 11th, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1-10 and 12-19 are pending. Claims 13-19 are withdrawn as being directed to a non-elected invention. Claims 1-10 and 12 are up for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-10 and 12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the display" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-10 and 12 are rejected merely due to their dependency from claim 1.
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 1-4, 7-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korean Patent No. KR 100565256 (herein referred to as ‘256) in view of Crapser et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2008/2006092).
‘256 discloses a cleaning system comprising:
A cleaning device (100) movable along a support surface, the cleaning device including:
A body (1);
An airflow path extending through the body (Figure 4);
An air filtration system (7/5/3/4/2/31) arranged within the airflow path (Figure 4); and
A propulsion system to maneuver the body through an area to be cleaned (page 3, 3rd paragraph; page 4 1st paragraph); and
A docking station (200) includes a light device (52) operable to emit a light having a desired wavelength (i.e., UV light), wherein the cleaning device (100) is removably connectable to the docking station (Figures 2-4), the light device (52) being positioned to emit the light having the desired wavelength over the air filtration system to sterilize the air filtration system when the cleaning device is connected to the docking station (Figure 4; page 3, paragraphs 8 & 9). Note that the brush is part of the filtration system in ‘256. Further note that the brush (7) can be reasonably defined as a filter, as it removes dust from the air flowing through when the dust is trapped in the bristles of the brush.
‘256 does not appear to disclose an air quality sensor configured to detect an air quality of an ambient atmosphere surrounding the body, the ambient atmosphere being offset from the support surface; and a controller operably coupled to the air quality sensor, the air filtration system, the propulsion system, and to a display, the controller being configured to control operation of the propulsion system in response to the air quality detected by the air quality sensor. Crapser discloses a cleaning device movable along a support surface that includes an air filtration system within an airflow path (Figure 16), a propulsion system (1410/1416) to move the body through an area to be cleaned, a controller, and a display (1112) as shown in Figures 11, 12 & 16 (paragraphs 10 and 13). The reference continues to disclose an air quality sensor configured to detect an air quality of an ambient atmosphere surrounding the body, the ambient atmosphere being offset from the support surface (paragraph 47); and a controller operably coupled to the air quality sensor, the air filtration system, the propulsion system, and to a display, the controller being configured to control operation of the propulsion system in response to the air quality detected by the air quality sensor in order to effectively monitor the air quality of a particular area, and autonomously transport the cleaning device to areas of poor air quality for air purification (paragraphs 13, 47-75, 119 and 120). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the system of ‘256 with an air quality sensor configured to detect an air quality of an ambient atmosphere surrounding the body, and a controller operably coupled to the air quality sensor, the air filtration system, the propulsion system, and to a display, to control operation of the propulsion system in response to the air quality detected by the air quality sensor in order to effectively monitor the air quality of a particular area, and autonomously transport the cleaning device to areas of poor air quality for air purification as exemplified by Crapser.
As such, claim 1 is not patentable over ‘256 in view of Crapser.
Concerning claim 2, ‘256 also discloses that the air filtration system comprises:
At least one filter (3);
An air movement mechanism operable to move a flow of air through the at least one filter (page 3, paragraph 2); and
A motor (2) operably coupled to the air movement mechanism (page 3, paragraph 2).
With respect to claim 3, ‘256 does not appear to disclose a plurality of wheels to support the body on a floor, and a drive motor operably coupled to the plurality of wheels. Nonetheless, Crapser continues to disclose a plurality of wheels (1416) to support the body on a floor, and a drive motor (1410) operably coupled to the plurality of wheels in order to successfully and automatically transport the device throughout a particular area (paragraphs 123-125; Figure 14). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of ‘256 with a plurality of wheels to support the body on a floor, and a drive motor operably coupled to the plurality of wheels in order to successfully and automatically transport the device throughout a particular area as exemplified by Crapser.
Therefore, claim 3 is not patentable over ‘256 in view of Crapser as well.
Concerning claim 4, while ‘256 in view of Crapser appears to disclose two different motors operably coupled to the air movement mechanism and the plurality of wheels respectively, the reference does not disclose a single motor for such purposes in which the motor is the drive motor. However, The Manual of Patent Examining Procedures discloses that in In re Harza, 274, F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), a mere duplication of parts for a multiplied effect has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (See MPEP 2144.04). In a similar manner, it is not considered a patentable distinction to utilize a single component to perform two functions versus utilizing two of the same component to perform said two functions because such would be considered nothing more than a mere matter of engineering design choice. Thus, the claiming of the motor being the drive motor does not create a patentable distinction over ‘256 in view of Crapser.
Therefore, claim 4 is not patentable over Kim in view of ‘256.
Regarding claim 7, ‘256 continues to disclose that the air flow path further comprises an air inlet (at numeral 5) arranged at a first portion of the body and an air outlet at a second portion of the body (numeral 31 or hole directly behind numeral 31).
With respect to claim 8, ‘256 further discloses that the body comprises a front, back, top and bottom, the front being the first portion and the back being the second portion (Figure 4).
.
Concerning claim 9, Crapser continues to disclose that in response to the air quality detected by the air quality sensor being less than a predetermined threshold, the controller is configured to stop operation of the propulsion system, operate of the air filtration system until the air quality detected by the air quality sensor equals the predetermined threshold, and reinitiate operation of the propulsion system when the air quality detected by the air quality sensor equals the predetermined threshold (paragraphs 70 and 71). Thus, the modification of ‘256 with Crapser noted above will meet these limitations as well.
Therefore, claim 9 is not patentable over ‘256 in view of Crapser as well.
With respect to claims 10 & 12, ‘256 does not appear to disclose an obstacle detection sensor, wherein the controller is configured to operate the propulsion system in response to the obstacle detection sensor to move the body autonomously. However, Crapser continues to disclose an obstacle detection sensor, wherein the controller is configured to operate the propulsion system in response to the obstacle detection sensor to move the body autonomously in order to navigate the device around obstacles in a room (paragraphs 55, 57 and 59). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the system of ‘256 with an obstacle detection sensor, wherein the controller is configured to operate the propulsion system in response to the obstacle detection sensor to move the body autonomously in order to navigate the device around obstacles in a room as exemplified by Crapser.
Thus, claims 10 & 12 are also not patentable over ‘256 in view of Crapser.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korean Patent No. KR 100565256 (herein referred to as ‘256) in view of Crapser et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2008/0206092) as set forth above with respect to claim 2, and further in view of Kihm et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0369847).
‘256 is relied upon as set forth above. ‘256 does not appear to disclose that the propulsion system includes a rotor mounted to the body, and a drive motor operably coupled to the rotor. Kihm discloses a similar cleaning device that includes a body with an air filtration system and a propulsion system that includes a plurality of wheels and a motor operably coupled to said wheels (Figure 3; paragraphs 83 & 84). The reference continues to disclose an alternate embodiment with an air filtration system (161) as well, wherein the alternate embodiment utilizes a propulsion system that includes a rotor mounted to the body, and a drive motor operably coupled to the rotor in order to allow the device to fly from one location to another (paragraphs 86 & 87). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a propulsion system in the device of ‘256 that includes a rotor mounted to the body, and a drive motor operably coupled to the rotor in order to allow the device to fly from one location to another as exemplified by Kihm.
Therefore, claim 5 is not patentable over ‘256 in view of Crapser and Kihm.
With respect to claim 6, The Manual of Patent Examining Procedures discloses that in In re Harza, 274, F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), a mere duplication of parts for a multiplied effect has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (See MPEP 2144.04). In a similar manner, it is not considered a patentable distinction to utilize a single component to perform two functions versus utilizing two of the same component to perform said two functions because such would be considered nothing more than a mere matter of engineering design choice; as Kihm discloses the use of two motors to perform the functions of the motor for the air movement mechanism and the drive motor for the propulsion system, wherein a single motor to perform both functions would be nothing more than a mere matter of engineering design choice. Thus, the claiming of the motor being the drive motor does not create a patentable distinction over ‘256 in view of Kihm.
As such, claim 6 is not patentable over ‘256 in view of Crapser and Kihm as well.
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 KEVIN C JOYNER whose telephone number is (571)272-2709. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-4:30PM.
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, MICHAEL MARCHESCHI can be reached at (571) 272-1374. 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.
/KEVIN JOYNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799