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 .
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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Morin et al (US 20180235424 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Morin discloses a system (figure 2), comprising:
a trash can (canister, 220; also see “trash can” in figure 2 below);
a robotic vacuum docking station (base, 206; also see “docking station” in figure 2 below) connected to the trash can (Fig. 2), wherein the robotic vacuum docking station (base, 206; also see “docking station” in figure 2 below) comprises an inlet (ramp portion of 206 serves as an inlet since “inlet” is defined by Merriam-Webster as “a way of entering”; also see “inlet” in figure 2 below) configured to receive a robotic vacuum.
Regarding claim 15, Morin discloses wherein the robotic vacuum docking station is a charging station comprising a charger 240/245 electrically connectable to the robotic vacuum when received in the inlet (figure 2; paragraphs 0059-0061).
Regarding claim 3, Morin discloses a system, comprising:
a trash can (canister, 220; also see “trash can” in figure 2 below);
a robotic vacuum docking station (base, 206; also see “docking station” in figure 2 below) connected to the trash can, the docking station comprises a charging contact 240 configured for electrically contacting a robotic vacuum (paragraph 0061) in an inlet of the docking station (ramp portion of 206 serves as an inlet since “inlet” is defined by Merriam-Webster as “a way of entering”; also see “inlet” in figure 2 below); and
a vacuum 200 communicatively connected to the trash can, configured to retrieve vacuumed debris from the robotic vacuum and empty the vacuumed debris into the trash can (figure 2; paragraph 0063).
Regarding claim 17, Morin discloses wherein the charging contact docketing station is a charger for the robotic vacuum (paragraphs 0059-0061).
Claim(s) 2, 4, 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by NA et al (US 20210038034 A1).
Regarding claim 2, NA discloses a system (figure 1), comprising:
a trash can 2 with an upper lip (see “upper lip” in figure 7A below);
a hinge connected to the upper lip of the trash can (see “joint” in annotated figure 7A below);
a lid 50 connected to the hinge for enclosing the trash can when the lid is closed on the hinge (figure 7A);
an inlet (see “inlet” in figure 3 below) connected to the trash can, the inlet configured to receive a robotic vacuum 100 therein; and
a charging contact docking element 32 of the inlet for electrically contacting the robotic vacuum received in the inlet (paragraph 0059).
Regarding claim 16, NA discloses wherein the charging contact docking element 32 is a charger for the robotic vacuum (paragraph 0059).
PNG
media_image1.png
358
521
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
488
422
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, NA discloses a system, comprising:
a trash can 2 with an upper lip (see “upper lip” in figure 7A above);
a hinge (see “joint” in figure 7A above) connected to the upper lip of the trash can;
a lid 50 connected to the hinge for enclosing the trash can when the lid is closed on the hinge;
an inlet (see “inlet” in figure 3 below) connected to the trash can, the inlet configured to receive a robotic vacuum 100 therein;
a charging contact docking element 32 of the inlet for electrically contacting the robotic vacuum 100 received in the inlet;
a suction inlet 31 of the inlet communicatively connected to a debris accessway of the robotic vacuum when the robotic vacuum is received in the inlet (along “A1” in figure 3);
a vacuum motor 20 connected to the suction inlet (paragraphs 0049-0050);
a duct 40 connected to the vacuum motor (paragraph 0049-0050); and
an outlet (outlet of 40 along “A1”) connected to the duct, the outlet configured to dispense vacuumed debris collected by the robotic vacuum into the trash can (figure 3).
Regarding claim 18, NA discloses wherein the docking element charging contact 32 includes a charger for the robotic vacuum (paragraph 0059).
Claim(s) 5 - 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Won et al (US 20090044370 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Won discloses a system (figure 25B) comprising:
a trash can 1210 having an interior for receiving trash deposited therein through a closable lid 1212 of the trash can (trash able to be put into trash can through lid when opened);
a robotic vacuum docking station 1202 connected to the trash can and comprising an inlet (where vacuum is located in figure 25B) configured to receive a robotic vacuum (vacuum with bin 50 in figure 25B); and
a vacuum motor 900 of the robotic vacuum docking station (900/150/EVAC line may serve as part of the docking station) communicatively connected to a collected debris accessway of the robotic vacuum (see EVAC in vacuum of 25B) when the robotic vacuum is received in the inlet (figure 25B), the vacuum motor configured to transfer vacuumed debris from the robotic vacuum through the collected debris accessway and into the interior of the trash can (figure 25B).
Regarding claim 6, Won further discloses the system further comprising:
a canister 50 connected to the vacuum motor (at least indirectly connected) and interposed between the vacuum motor 900 and the interior of the trash can (debris travels along EVAC path from 50, through 900 and then into trash can);
wherein the vacuum motor 900 retrieves the collected vacuumed debris from the robotic vacuum through the collected debris accessway and contains the collected vacuumed debris so retrieved in the canister prior to depositing into the interior of the trash can (figure 25B).
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.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Won et al (US 20090044370 A1) in view of Morin et al (US 20180235424 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Won discloses the system of claim 5, having a vacuum docking station (docking portion, 1202).
Won is silent regarding the robotic vacuum docking station is a charging station configured to electrically charge the robotic vacuum when received in the inlet via a charging contact of the inlet.
However, Morin a robotic vacuum docking station being a charging station (paragraph 0058) configured to electrically charge the robotic vacuum when received in the inlet via a charging contact 240/245 of the inlet (paragraph 0058-0060).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Won by making the robotic vacuum docking station a charging station configured to electrically charge the robotic vacuum when received in the inlet via a charging contact of the inlet, as taught by Morin, for the purpose of providing more energy for the vacuum to continue cleaning larger areas for longer time.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., lid operable by a user to deposit household refuse therein; trash liner; functionality as a household waste bin; dual functions as a household refuse receptacle and a robotic vacuum docking station) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The term “can” is a broad term that is understood to be any receptacle. Marriam webster dictionary provides one definition of “a usually cylindrical receptacle” meaning that it is a receptacle and, although usually a cylinder, can be any shape. Merriam webster dictionary further has the definition of “a usually metal typically cylindrical receptacle usually with an open top, often with a removable cover, and sometimes with a spout or side handles (as for holding liquid or trash)” (emphasis added). Note the terms “usually”, “typically” and “often” making It clear that these features are not required for a “can”.
The phrase “trash can” is therefore interpreted as a receptacle for trash and does not require the features set forth in applicant’s arguments. This is disclosed by the prior art as set forth above.
Regarding applicant’s arguments to amended claim 6, attention is brought to the rejection above which addresses the amended claim.
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 ERIC J ROSEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7855. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 930am-6pm.
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, Marivelisse Santiago-Cordero can be reached at (571) 272-7839. 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.
/ERIC J ROSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights