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 .
Response to Amendment
1. Amendments filed 1/21/2026 have been entered, wherein claims 1-14 and 16 are pending. Accordingly, claims 1-14 and 16 have been examined herein. The previous 35 USC 112(b) rejection has been updated below. The previous 35 USC 112(f) interpretations have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments. This action is Final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4-8, 10 are 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding claim 4, the language was amended to recite “wherein the seal includes a second material obtained by mixing the first material with iron or steel powder, by 10 weight percent (wt%) of the first material to 80 wt% of the iron or steel powder”. However, with 10 weight percent of the first material, there would be 90 weight percent of the iron or steel powder. The original disclosure (including specification and originally filed claim set) does not provide support for wherein the iron or steel powder is present at 90 weight percent. Claims 5-8, 10 and 14 are rejected for depending upon a rejected base claim.
3. 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 4-8, 10 are 14 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.
Regarding claim 4, the language was amended to recite “wherein the seal includes a second material obtained by mixing the first material with iron or steel powder, by 10 weight percent (wt%) of the first material to 80 wt% of the iron or steel powder”. However, it is not precisely clear what is required by the range because the range is defined using two different metrics. Additionally, it is not precisely clear what is required by the range in the scenario that a third material is included. Overall, because the range is defined using two different metrics, it is not precisely clear what is required by the range. For purposes of examination, as best understood by the examiner, the limitation will be interpreted as “wherein the seal includes a second material obtained by mixing the first material with iron or steel powder, by 10 weight percent (wt%) of the [[first material]] iron or steel powder to 80 wt% of the iron or steel powder”. Additionally, this interpretation would overcome the above 35 USC 112(a) rejection.
Claims 5-8, 10 and 14 are rejected for depending upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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 1-3, 9, 11-13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (US PGPUB 20180084963), hereinafter Lim, in view of Cho (KR 20160018319) and further in view of Gim (KR 20120082532) and Ishizaki et al. (US PGPUB 20170356551), hereinafter Ishizaki.
Regarding claim 1, Lim teaches a dust collection bin (fig. 5) detachably coupled to a cleaning apparatus (the dust collection bin is capable of detachably coupling to a cleaning apparatus (fig. 1-2)), the dust collection bin comprising:
a case (fig. 5, case 53) configured to accommodate dust or a foreign material sucked therein (dust collection space 501), the case including a first opening (opening created when cover 52 is opened) and a second opening (fig. 5, suction port 511), the first opening disposed on a different side of the case from the second opening (fig. 5),
a cover configured to open or close the first opening (cover 52, fig. 5-6); and
a seal provided on the cover (Lim teaches a gasket (interpreted as seal) is provided along a circumference of the dust container cover 52 [0085]), configured to seal between the cover and the case [0085],
wherein the dust collection bin, when detached from the cleaning apparatus, is configured to be detachably couplable on a top of a docking station and to discharge the dust or foreign material through a center of the first opening (fig. 5-6, the dust collection bin is capable of, when detached from the cleaning apparatus, being configured to be detachably couplable on a top of a docking station and to discharge the dust or foreign material through a center of the first opening [0120]), and
wherein the dust collection bin, when attached to the cleaning apparatus, is configured to be detachably couplable below a filter of the cleaning apparatus and to receive the dust or foreign material through a center of the second opening (the dust collection bin is capable of, when attached to a cleaning apparatus, being configured to be detachably couplable below a filter of the cleaning apparatus and to receive the dust or foreign material through a center of the second opening 511. Because the claim is directed towards “A dust collection bin”, the prior art must only be capable of the intended use limitations, including intended use limitations of interactions with the cleaning apparatus.).
Lim does not explicitly teach
a magnet provided around the first opening and configured to generate a magnetic force;
the seal being magnetic to be deformable by the magnet,
wherein a portion of the seal deforms to move from a first position to a second position in response to the cover being closed, the second position being lower than the first position and higher than a lower end of the magnet.
However, Cho teaches a dust collection bin (fig. 4-8), wherein the dust collection bin includes a cover 220 and a seal 230 (fig. 7-8). Cho teaches the seal has a deformable portion that contacts the inner wall of the dust collection bin when the cover is closed (figs. 7-10). Overall, Cho teaches wherein a portion of the seal deforms to move from a first position (first position as seen in fig. 10a) to a second position (as seen in fig. 10c) in response to the cover being closed (the seal deforms from the first position to the second position in response to the cover being closed), the second position being lower than the first position (The structure 110 coming down to the seal is interpreted as closing the cover. In this interpretation, the second position of the seal is lower than the first position due to the deformation).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lim to incorporate the teachings of Cho to provide wherein a portion of the seal deforms to move from a first position to a second position in response to the cover being closed, the second position being lower than the first position. Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate the seal of Cho as the seal of Lim, wherein Lim does not provide explicit details about the seal. Doing so would provide explicit structure of the seal. Additionally, doing so would prevent leakage due to the two part seal structure of Cho (fig. 9 of Cho).
Lim, as modified, does not explicitly teach
a magnet provided around the first opening and configured to generate a magnetic force;
the seal being magnetic to be deformable by the magnet,
the second position being higher than a lower end of the magnet.
However, Gim teaches a sealing means, wherein a rubber magnet 152 is embedded in the casing, wherein the rubber magnet extends around the opening of the casing (fig. 2-4). The rubber magnet 152 interacts with a magnetic material 153 which is located on the cover (fig. 3 and 5).
Additionally, Ishizaki teaches a magnetic material which includes a sealing member including a magnetic powder (iron particles [0071]) and a rubber material (abs). The rubber material is a silicone rubber [0017] and the magnetic powder has a content percentage of 5% by mass to 50% by mass [0016].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Lim, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Gim and Ishizaki to provide a magnet (as taught by Gim) embedded in the casing around the first opening and configured to generate a magnetic force (as taught by Gim), wherein the magnet interacts with a magnetic material located on the cover and corresponding to the magnet (as taught by Gim in fig. 5), wherein the magnetic material located on the cover is the magnetic material which includes a sealing member including a magnetic powder (iron particles) and a silicone rubber (as taught by Ishizaki) in the shape of the seal of Cho, wherein the magnetic powder has a content percentage of 5% by mass to 50% by mass. Doing so would promote an increased sealing and locking feature by attaching the magnet to the magnetic material (as taught by Gim in the abstract). Additionally, doing so provides a sealing member which is easy to handle, suitable for sealing between various members, and is excellent in suppressing abrasion on the seal surface [0020 of Ishizaki].
In summary, Lim, as modified, teaches
a magnet (as incorporated from Gim) provided around the first opening (as incorporated from Gim and taught by Gim in fig. 2 and 5) and configured to generate a magnetic force (as incorporated from Gim);
the seal being magnetic to be deformable by the magnet (as incorporated from Ishizaki, wherein the seal is a mixture of magnetic powder and silicone rubber, wherein the seal as incorporated from Ishizaki is capable of being deformed by the magnet due to the silicone rubber),
the second position being higher than a lower end of the magnet (Lim, as modified, teaches a magnetic element (seal of Ishizaki) which corresponds to the incorporated magnet, wherein the magnetic element corresponds to the incorporated magnet when in the closed position as taught by Gim’s fig. 5, wherein the closed position is the second position of Cho’s incorporated seal, wherein in the closed position, the seal is higher than a lower end of the magnet due to the corresponding orientation. In other words, a portion of the seal in the closed position is higher than a lower end of the magnet (Gim fig. 5)).
Regarding claim 2, Lim, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Lim, as modified, teaches wherein the magnet is positioned at a location corresponding to the seal (as incorporated from fig. 5 of Gim) such that the seal applies a sealing force to the case in a closed state of the cover (fig. 9 of Cho, as incorporated).
Regarding claim 3, Lim, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Lim, as modified, teaches wherein the seal includes a first material (rubber) which is at least one of nitrile- butadiene rubber (NBR) (the prior art is not required to teach this limitation because the language recites the term “at least one of”), silicon rubber (see above rejection of claim 1 for more details. silicone rubber of Ishizaki), thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU), or triethyl phosphate (TEP) (the prior art is not required to teach these limitations because the language recites the term “at least one of”).
Regarding claim 9, Lim, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Lim, as modified, teaches wherein the magnet is positioned in a lower end of the case to generate an attraction force with respect to the seal (see rejection of claim 1 for more details. The magnet was incorporated from Gim and is positioned in a lower end of the case to generate an attraction force with respect to the seal).
Regarding claim 11, Lim, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Lim, as modified, teaches wherein the case further comprises a lock configured to lock or unlock the cover (Fig. 5 of Lim, opening/closing mechanism 58 and boss 539 of Lim).
Regarding claim 12, Lim, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 11. Additionally, Lim, as modified, teaches wherein the lock further comprises a hook (opening/closing part 580 and boss 539 are interpreted as the hook, fig. 8-13 of Lim) configured to fix the cover to the case (the opening/closing part 580 and boss 539 are configured to fix the cover to the case, fig. 8-15 of Lim) and release locking of the cover by being pressed by an external force (the opening/closing part 580 and boss 539 are configured to release locking of the cover by being pressed by an external force, fig. 8-15 of Lim).
Regarding claim 13, Lim, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Lim, as modified, teaches wherein the case includes a slot provided around the first opening and configured to install the magnet (see above rejection of claim 1 for more details. Lim was modified to incorporate the embedded magnet, as taught by Gim, around the first opening. The portion in which the magnet is embedded in the case is interpreted as the slot).
Regarding claim 16, Lim, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Lim, as modified, teaches wherein a bottom of the case is without an opening when the cover is closed (fig. 5-6 of Lim).
Claims 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (US PGPUB 20180084963), hereinafter Lim, in view of Cho (KR 20160018319) and further in view of Gim (KR 20120082532) and Ishizaki et al. (US PGPUB 20170356551), hereinafter Ishizaki, as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Schuette et al. (US PGPUB 20210139668), hereinafter Schuette.
Regarding claim 4, Lim, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 3. Additionally, Lim, as modified, teaches wherein the seal includes a second material obtained by mixing the first material (silicone rubber, see rejection of claim 3 above) with iron or steel powder (iron particles, see rejection of claim 1 above), by 10 weight percent (wt%) of the first material to 80 wt% of the iron or steel powder (Lim, as modified, teaches the iron powder has a content percentage of 5% by mass to 50% by mass.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the range of Lim, as modified, from between 5-50% to between 10 and 80% as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see pp. [0014] indicating range of 10-80%) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Lim, as modified, does not explicitly teach the iron or steel powder of a size of 1 micro meter to 100 micrometer.
However, Schuette teaches of magnetic particles [0002], wherein the magnetic particles are iron particles having diameter of about 0.5 micron to 100 micron [0007].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Lim, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Schuette to provide wherein the iron particles have a size of 0.5 micron to 100 micron. Doing so provides for improved magnetic properties [0005 of Schuette] by not having excessive layers on the particle. Additionally, smaller particles are easier to disperse [0016 of Schuette].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the range of Lim, as modified, from between.5 micron to 100 micron to between 1 micron to 100 micron as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see pp. [0014] indicating range of 1-100 micron) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
As best understood by the examiner, in light of the above 35 USC 112 rejections, the prior art teaches the claim limitations.
Regarding claim 5, Lim, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 4. Additionally, Lim, as modified, teaches wherein the seal comprises:
a first sealing portion configured to cover the first opening (fig. 9 of Cho, portion 234 is interpreted as the first sealing portion); and
a second sealing portion extending from the first sealing portion and being in contact with an inner wall of the case (fig. 9 of Cho, portions 232, 233 and 235 are interpreted as the second sealing portion).
Regarding claim 6, Lim, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 5. Additionally, Lim, as modified, teaches wherein the second sealing portion includes a free end that is deformable in shape by the magnet (fig. 9 of Cho, the second sealing portion includes a free end that is deformable in shape by the magnet. see rejection of claim 1 for more details).
Regarding claim 7, Lim, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 5. Additionally, Lim, as modified, teaches wherein at least one part of the second sealing portion is formed as a curved surface (fig. 9 of Cho, wherein at least one part of the second sealing portion is formed as a curved surface).
Regarding claim 8, Lim, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 6. Additionally, Lim, as modified, teaches wherein at least one part of the free end is formed as a curved surface (fig. 9 of Cho, wherein at least one part of the free end is formed as a curved surface).
Claims 10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (US PGPUB 20180084963), hereinafter Lim, in view of Cho (KR 20160018319) and further in view of Gim (KR 20120082532) and Ishizaki et al. (US PGPUB 20170356551), hereinafter Ishizaki, and further in view of Schuette et al. (US PGPUB 20210139668), hereinafter Schuette, as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Bo (US PGPUB 20200359868).
Regarding claim 10, Lim, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 5. Additionally, Lim, as modified, teaches a rotation device configured to rotate the cover with respect to a main body (fig. 7 of Lim, dust container cover shaft 521 that is rotatably coupled to a dust container coupling part [0121 of Lim]), the rotation device comprises a rotation shaft (shaft 521 of Lim).
Lim, as modified, does not explicitly teach the rotation device comprises:
a torsion spring coupled to the rotation shaft,
wherein one end of the torsion spring is connected with the cover and another end of the torsion spring is connected with the case.
However, Bo teaches a robot vacuum cleaner which includes a rotation device configured to rotate a cover 204 with respect to a body (fig. 9-13), wherein the rotation device comprises:
a rotation shaft (rotation shaft 206, fig. 11-12), and
a torsion spring coupled to the rotation shaft (205: torsion spring),
wherein one end of the torsion spring is connected with the cover and another end of the torsion spring is connected with the case (fig. 12, wherein one end of the torsion spring 205 is connected with the cover (as shown in fig. 12) and another end of the torsion spring is indirectly connected with the case (as shown in fig. 9 and 12).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Lim, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Bo to provide the rotation device comprises:
a rotation shaft, and
a torsion spring coupled to the rotation shaft,
wherein one end of the torsion spring is connected with the cover and another end of the torsion spring is connected with the case.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate the rotation device of Bo in order to rotationally support the door of Lim. Doing so would allow the device to swing open as intended in order to empty the debris. Additionally, doing so would prevent the door from being inadvertently separated from the dust collection bin.
Regarding claim 14, Lim, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 10. Additionally, Lim, as modified, teaches wherein upon returning of the cover from an open state by the rotation device, the first sealing portion of the seal covers the first opening (see annotated fig. 9 of Cho below, wherein the indicated first sealing portion of the seal covers the opening), and
PNG
media_image1.png
600
941
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the second sealing portion is deformed in shape to contact the inner wall of the case and seals the case (see rejection of claim 1 for more details and the above annotated fig. 9 of Cho. the second sealing portion of Cho deforms in shape to contact the inner wall of the case and seals the case).
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed 1/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As noted above, the 35 USC 112(b) rejection has been updated and maintained. See above rejection for more details.
Applicant argues the prior art of record fails to teach the amended language of independent claim 1. Specifically, Applicant argues Cho fails to teach the first opening disposed on a different side of the case from the second opening. Applicant argues the additionally cited prior art fails to cure these deficiencies (pages 8-10 of Applicant’s remarks). However, Cho was not relied upon to teach the amended language. Rather, Lim was relied upon to teach the amended language. See above rejection for more details.
Applicant argues the claims depending from claim 1 are allowable by virtue of dependency. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 has been rejected over Lim, as modified. The dependent claims have been rejected accordingly. See above rejection for more details.
Conclusion
6. 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 MICHAEL A GUMP whose telephone number is (571)272-2172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9:00-5:30.
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, David Posigian can be reached at (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 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.
/MICHAEL A GUMP/ Examiner, Art Unit 3723