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.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 7 – 14 and 20 – 21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on September 19, 2025.
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:
“docking element” in claims 2 and 4.
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.
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 3 and 17 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.
Claims 3, 5 – 6, 17 and 19 recite the limitation "the robotic vacuum" in lines 5 and line 2, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 depend from claim 3; Claims 6 and 19 depend from claim 5 and are therefore rejected accordingly under 35 USC 112(b).
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).
In re claim 1. Morin et al discloses a system (evacuation station, Fig. 2: 205 and mobile robot, 200), comprising:
a trash can (canister, 220);
a robotic vacuum docking station (base, 206) connected to the trash can (connected to 220, see Fig. 2);
In re claim 15. Morin et al discloses the system of claim 1,
wherein the docking station is a charging station (base, 206 in evacuation station, 205 is used for charging, see [0059]).
In re claim 3. Morin et al discloses a system (evacuation station, Fig. 2: 205 and mobile robot, 200), comprising:
a trash can (canister, 220);
a robotic vacuum docketing station (base, 206) connected to the trash can (connected to 220, see Fig. 2); and
a vacuum (motor, 218) of the trash can (canister, 220) for retrieving vacuumed debris from the robotic vacuum and emptying the vacuumed debris into the trash can (motor, 218 expels the air drawn out of the canister, 220 through an exit port 223 on the canister, 220. As noted, the removal of air generates negative air pressure in the canister, 220, which evacuates the debris bin, 210 by generating an air flow along the flow path, 222 that suctions the debris 215, see [0063]).
In re claim 17. Morin et al discloses the system of claim 3,
wherein the docketing station (base, 206) is a charger (having electrical contacts, 245) for the robotic vacuum (Additionally or alternatively, when the electrical contacts 240, 245 are properly mated, the control system 208 can execute a charging operation to restore, wholly or partially, the power source of the mobile robot 200, see [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).
In re claim 2. NA et al discloses a system (station, Fig. 1: 1), comprising:
a trash can (housing, 2) with an upper lip (joint, see annotated Fig. 7A, below);
PNG
media_image1.png
506
676
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig 7A – illustrates the upper lip of trash can with joint to open lid
a hinge (joint, see annotated Fig. 7A, above) connected to the upper lip of the trash can (connected to housing, 2, see Fig. 7A);
a lid (cover member, 50) connected to the hinge for enclosing the trash can when the lid is closed on the hinge (connected to joint for enclosing housing, 2, see Fig. 7A);
an inlet (opening of housing, see annotated Fig. 3, below) connected to the trash can for receiving a robotic vacuum (connected to housing, 2 and receive robot cleaner, 100, see Fig. 3); and
PNG
media_image2.png
635
560
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 – illustrates the inlet and outlet of housing.
a docking element (charging terminal, 32) of the inlet (see annotated Fig. 3, above) for contacting the robotic vacuum received in the inlet (contact robot cleaner, 100 received in opening, see Fig. 3),
In re claim 16. NA et al discloses the system of claim 2,
wherein the docking element (charging terminal, 32) is a charger (charging terminal, 32 for charging robot cleaner, 100, see [0059]).
In re claim 4. NA et al discloses a system (station, Fig. 1: 1), comprising:
a trash can (housing, 2) with an upper lip (joint, see annotated Fig. 7A, below);
PNG
media_image1.png
506
676
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 7A – illustrates the upper lip of the housing with joint to open lid
a hinge (joint, see annotated Fig. 7A, above) connected to the upper lip of the trash can (connected to housing, 2, see Fig. 7A);
a lid (cover member, 50) connected to the hinge for enclosing the trash can when the lid is closed on the hinge (connected to joint for enclosing housing, 2, see Fig. 7A);
an inlet (opening of housing, see annotated Fig. 3, below) connected to the trash can for receiving a robotic vacuum (connected to housing, 2 and receive robot cleaner, 100, see Fig. 3);
PNG
media_image2.png
635
560
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 – illustrates the inlet and outlet of housing.
a docking element (charging terminal, 32) of the inlet (see annotated Fig. 3, above) for contacting the robotic vacuum received in the inlet (contact robot cleaner, 100 received in opening, see Fig. 3),
a suction inlet (docking suction port, 31) of the inlet (of opening, see Fig. 2);
a vacuum motor (driver, 20 has a motor, see [0048]) connected to the suction inlet (a driver, 20 has a motor which suctions dust into a dust bag, 200 from the robot cleaner, 100 connected with a docking suction port, 31, see [0039]);
a duct (40) connected to the vacuum motor (connected to drive, 20, see Fig. 3); and
an outlet (see annotated Fig. 3, above) connected to the duct (connected to 40, see annotated Fig. 3), the outlet dispenses vacuumed debris collected by the robotic vacuum into the trash can (the driver, 20 may form a suction channel A1 through which dust is suctioned to the inner part of the station 1 and a discharge channel A2 through which dust is discharged to the outer part of the station 1 after the dust is removed from the suction channel A1, see [0049]).
In re claim 18. NA et al discloses the system of claim 4,
wherein the docking element (charging terminal, 32) includes a charger (charging terminal, 32) for the robotic vacuum (charging robot cleaner, 100, see [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).
In re claim 5. Won et al discloses a system (maintenance station, Fig. 25A: 1200), comprising:
a trash can (1210);
a robotic vacuum docking station (docking portion, 1202) connected to the trash can (connected to 1210, see Fig. 25B); and
a vacuum motor (vacuum, 900) communicatively connected to a collected debris accessway of the robotic vacuum (connected to robot bin, 50 and evac duct, see Fig. 25B).
In re claim 6. Won et al discloses the system of claim 5, further comprising:
a canister (collection bin, 150) connected to the vacuum (connected to 900, see Fig. 25B);
wherein the vacuum retrieves the collected debris from the robotic vacuum and contains the collected debris so retrieved in the canister (In the configuration shown in FIG. 25B, the vacuum, 900 is a high powered vacuum (e.g., 6-12 amp) that pulls air through the filter, 910 and via the collection bin, 150, through ducting and hoses along or within the trash can portion, 1210, over and through the brush, 530, and optionally directly or diverted from the cleaning bin, 30 of the robot, 10, see [0082]).
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.
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).
In re claim 19. Won et al discloses the system of claim 5, having a vacuum docking station (docking portion, 1202).
Won et al is silent about the robotic vacuum docking station is a charging station.
However, Morin et al teaches an evacuation station (generally, an evacuation station, can serve as a docking station and charging station, see [0058]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify Won et al with the teachings of the robotic vacuum docking station is a charging station as taught by Morin et al. because it eliminates the need for manual intervention which improves efficiency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gill et al (US 11191403 B2) teaches a robotic cleaner debris removal docking station.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARONDA TIYILLE FELTON whose telephone number is (571)270-0379. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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.
/SHARONDA T FELTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/KATINA N. HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723