DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
PNG
media_image1.png
659
581
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “dust collection port and dust extraction port being disposed at two opposite positions on a diagonal line of the dust box” (claims 1 and 13; line E of Fig. 2 below is the only line that would read on the geometric definition of “diagonal”- “joining two vertices of a rectilinear figure that are nonadjacent”, that passes through the dust extraction port, but does not pass through the dust collection port; see rejection under 25 U.S.C. 112 below for further discussion; Further the line shown in Replacement Fig. 3 does not pass through the location of the dust collection port as shown in Fig. 7), or the center of the dust collection port arranged on the centerline of the housing (claims 4 and 16; the centerline of the housing, corresponding to the location from Fig. 1, when provided on Fig. 2, is clearly offset from the center of the dust collection port, as seen here) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1, 4, 13 and 16 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.
The limitations that the dust collection port and the dust extraction port are disposed at two opposite positions on a diagonal line of the dust box (claims 1 and 13) and that the center of the dust collection port is arranged on the centerline of the housing (claims 4 and 16) does not appear to be supported by the original application. As noted above, the drawings do not support the amended limitations (including the location of line L1 in Replacement Fig. 3), and the specification also fails to provide written support. As rejected below, the term “diagonal line” is considered to be unclear due to plural potentially applicable definitions, and the drawings contradict at least one definition, as discussed above. Thus, it appears that the limitation is not fully supported in the original application. Regarding claims 4 and 16, as previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the original disclosure and claim recited that “the center of the dust collection port is arranged corresponding to the centerline of the housing”, which was seen as unclear because term “correspond” has several definitions. While one possible definition (“similar or analogous in character or function”), could possibly be considered to read on the respective center of the dust collection port and centerline of the housing being aligned, the drawings from the original application appear to contradict the limitation. The examiner suggests that the applicant again amend the limitation to reflect the structure shown in the drawings and a known definition of the term “corresponds”, from the original claims and disclosure. As best understood by the examiner, the limitation is considered to be supported in a similar manner as considered previously, with the center of the dust collection port being near the centerline of the housing, and will be treated as such for the sake of the current Office Action.
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 and 16 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.
As mentioned above, the term “diagonal line” is unclear, because there is no supporting line shown in the drawings to support the limitation (passing through the ports or the ports being on the line), more than one possible definition of the term “diagonal”, no supporting original disclosure (as discussed above) and the drawings appear to contradict at least one definition (geometric definition requiring connecting two vertices). The term “diagonal”, as defined above to pass through vertices of a shape, as viewed in profile such as Fig. 2, would only have 2 possible lines that read on a diagonal (E above being the only one possible that would be close to passing through either port). However, as mentioned above, neither line would pass through both of the ports, as claimed, which is necessary to read on the limitation that “the ports are at two opposite positions on a diagonal line”. Another potentially applicable alternative definition of “diagonal” would be “passing through two nonadjacent edges of a polyhedron”. However, the drawings again fail to shown any such “diagonal line”, and at least the dust collection port, is clearly shown to be spaced from edges of the surface through which is passes, such that no line passing through edges of the polyhedron, would pass through the dust collection port. Lastly, the term “diagonal” is also defined as, “inclined obliquely from a reference line”, which would read on the line L1 shown in Replacement Fig. 3, and would also allow for a nearly infinite number of “diagonal” lines passing through the dust box and inclined relative to a base plane of the dust box, or relative to a fixed horizontal plane, and thus, would include at least one diagonal line that passes through both ports, to position the ports on opposite positions on the line.
Further, the limitation may be considered to be unclear due to the phrase “at two opposite positions on a diagonal line” is somewhat unclear, and may be interpreted as discussed above, or possibly as being at positions on opposite sides of the diagonal line (i.e. merely positioned anywhere on different side of the diagonal line from one another).
For the sake of the current Office Action, the limitation will be considered as best understood to be written in the current claims, and also supported by the original application as whole, that a diagonal line, defined as being inclined from a reference line, which may be any physical line defined on the dust box body, or any imaginary reference line, such that it would be possible for any orientation of the
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.
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, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai et al. (CN 116919246 A) as applied to claim 1, and in view of KR 2025-0162862 (to be referred to hereinafter as “KR862”).
PNG
media_image2.png
285
405
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Dai discloses a cleaning robot, comprising: a housing (12) enclosed to form a mounting chamber and provided with a dust outlet (24/25); a dust box (17) arranged in the mounting chamber and configured to collect dust, wherein the dust box is provided with a dust collection port (A) and a dust extraction port (B), wherein the dust collection port and the dust extraction port are respectively disposed on opposite sides of a centerline (X) of the dust box; and a dust extraction duct (18/24), wherein one end of the dust extraction duct communicates with the dust extraction port (B) and the other end of the dust extraction duct communicates with the dust outlet of the housing (25).
Regarding the new limitations of claim 1,
The dust collection port and the dust extraction port are disposed at two opposite positions on a diagonal line of the dust box (as defined above to be “inclined from a reference line”, which may be any physical line defined on the dust box body, or any imaginary reference line, such as line F shown above),
As discussed in the prior Office Action relating to claim 2, the dust box of Dai inherently comprises a windward plate to enclose the dust box, a first side plate, and a second side plate, and the first side plate and the second side plate are arranged opposite each other and connected to the windward plate, but Dai fails to disclose any specific location for the dust collection port. KR862 discloses the similar cleaning robot, as discussed supra, also having a dust box and fan in the same position as the assumed fan location of Dai, and teaches that the dust collection port (166) is disposed on the windward plate and defines an inlet for the dust collection airflow into the dust box (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 above); and wherein the dust box of KR862 also comprises a first side plate and a second side plate, the first side plate and the second side plate are arranged opposite each other and connected to the windward plate, wherein the dust extraction port is disposed on the first side plate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the dust box (disclosed by Dai as well known to those skilled in the art) to have a similar structure to the dust box disclosed by KR862, in order to provide the same function with a known structure, with the dust collection port on the windward plate, first and second side plates connected to the windward plate, with the dust extraction port on the first side plate.
Both Dai and KR862 disclose that the dust extraction port is disposed on the first side plate, wherein KR862 teaches that the dust collection port is disposed on the windward plate and is shown in a position that may be considered to be adjacent to an end of the windward plate away from the dust extraction port (“adjacent”1 defined as “lying near, close, or contiguous”, wherein the location of the dust collection port is considered to be lying near or close to the end of the plate, due to all components of the dust box being relatively close to one another, and also being positioned away from the dust extraction port due to the spacing therebetween), and
Dai further discloses that the first side plate comprises a first plate surface and a second plate surface, the first plate surface and the second plate surface are connected with an included angle formed therebetween, and wherein a side of the first plate surface away from the second plate surface is connected to the windward plate.
Regarding claim 13, Dai discloses the cleaning robot, as discussed supra, and further discloses a base station that the robot is configured to connect to for automated emptying of the dust box of the robot. However, Dai fails to disclose any specific structure of the base station. KR862 discloses a very similar cleaning robot, also having a dust box configured to be emptied by a base station, and teaches that the base station comprises a management compartment (211), the management compartment is configured to store the cleaning robot; wherein the base station further comprises a dust collection bag (261; disclosed as a dust bag) and a dust collection pump (fan 264), the dust collection pump is connected to the dust collection bag, a dust suction inlet (2115) is further disposed in the management compartment, the dust suction inlet is connected to the dust collection bag (via duct 263). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a similar base station for the cleaning robot of Dai, to empty the dust box as disclosed, to provide a cleaning system capable of automatically emptying the dust box to allow the robot cleaner to continue cleaning after filling the dust box.
Regarding claims 2 and 14, Dai discloses a fan (disclosed but not numbered; appears to be positioned at D above, to provide the required airflow), wherein the fan is inherently arranged on one side of the dust box (any location would be considered on a side) and is configured to form a dust collection airflow, the dust collection airflow running through the dust box (also inherent to operate as intended); wherein the dust box comprises the windward plate (as discussed supra), the windward plate facing towards an in-flow direction of the dust collection airflow (as defined by the term “windward”) and the dust collection port is an inlet for the dust collection airflow into the dust box.
Regarding claims 4 and 16, the structure disclosed by Dai and KR862 both disclose that the center of the fan is located on a centerline (Y) of the housing, the centerline of the dust box is offset (angularly) from the centerline of the housing, and the center of the dust collection port is arranged near the centerline of the housing (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 above).
Regarding claims 5 and 17, the structure disclosed by Dai and KR862 the dust box further comprises a filter screen (again, shown but not discussed for Dai, and disclosed as 161 for KR862, which is relied upon for the specific structure of the dust box) arranged between the windward plate and the fan; a side of the second plate surface away from the first plate surface is connected to the filter screen (as shown by KR862), wherein the first plate surface is perpendicular to a filter surface of the filter screen, the dust extraction port is disposed on the second plate surface, and wherein the included angle between the first plate surface and the second plate surface is a first included angle θ1, satisfying: 90°≤θ1 ≤ 180°.
Regarding claim 7, Dai further discloses that the dust extraction duct comprises a first duct section (18) and a second duct section (24), the first duct section is connected to the second duct section; wherein an end of the first duct section away from the second duct section is connected to the dust extraction port, an end of the second duct section away from the first duct section is connected to the housing, wherein an included angle is formed between the first duct section and the second duct section, and the second included angle is θ2, satisfying: 90°<θ2 ≤ 180° (shown to be approximately 135°, similar to the applicant’s disclosed invention).
Regarding claim 8, Dai further discloses that a portion (C) of the dust extraction duct located at the connection between the first duct section and the second duct section defines an arc-shape.
Regarding claim 11, Dai further discloses a cover (25), the cover is rotatably covered onto the dust outlet (via the flexible connector, as disclosed in English language translation, “the sealing cover 25 may be made of a soft rubber material, and as shown in FIG. 5, only the upper end of the sealing cover 25 is fixed to the box body 21, and the lower end thereof is in a free state”), and the covering area of the cover is larger than the opening area of the dust outlet (inherently larger than the outlet to be capable of covering the outlet by overlapping all boundaries of the outlet).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, the system of claim 13, comprising the robot of Dai, with the base station of KR862 as discussed supra, will also provide the structure of claims 19 and 20, as discussed for claims 7 and 8 above, respectively.
Claims 6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai et al. (CN 116919246 A) in view of KR 2025-0162862 (to be referred to hereinafter as “KR862”) as applied to claims 2 and 14, and further in view of Qian et al. (2024/0206690).
Dai and KR862 both disclose robotic cleaners having the dust box as discussed supra, with KR862 further disclosing that the box comprises an upper cover plate and a lower box body (although not shown, the dust box obviously includes a lower box body to complete the box and contain collected debris as intended), the upper cover plate is arranged above the lower box body, wherein the windward plate, the first side plate, the second side plate and the filter screen are arranged between the upper cover plate and the lower box body, and the windward plate, the first side plate, the second side plate, the filter screen, the lower box body and the upper cover plate enclose to form the dust box; and wherein the windward plate extends in a direction gradually away from the lower box body, forming an avoiding space is between the windward plate and the lower box body. KR862 also discloses that the cleaner includes a cleaning roller brush (151), but fails to specifically relate the location of the dust box and the roller brush. Qian disclose another similar robot cleaner, also having a dust box with a windward plate that defines the dust collection port therein and extends in a direction gradually away from the lower box body to form an avoiding space, and Qian shows the cleaning roller brush located immediately adjacent to the avoiding space (Fig. 23), which would be understood to anyone of ordinary skill in the art to most effectively remove debris from the brush and also maximizing the interior of the dust box, by providing the additional space extending over the roller brush, as shown. Therefore, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the robot of Dai with a similar cleaning roller brush, positioned as shown by KR862, immediately adjacent to the avoiding space of the dust box, as taught by Qian, to most effectively remove debris from the brush and also maximizing the interior of the dust box.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai et al. (CN 116919246 A) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Bo (WO 2020/007377 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Dai appears to show some form of cover at the dust extraction port of the dust box, and KR862 discloses that the dust extraction port (164) may include a one-way valve (first paragraph on page 5 of English language translation), but fails to disclose any specific structure for the one-way valve. Bo discloses another similar cleaning robot, also having a dust box with a dust extraction port for being emptied by a base station, and teaches that the dust extraction port comprises a sealing frame (space surrounding the dust extraction port, having a sealing material 222), the sealing frame is arranged at the dust extraction port; and wherein the cleaning robot comprises a pivot-cover (204), and the pivot-cover covering the dust extraction port and is rotatably connected to the sealing frame, which will function as a one-way valve to cover the extraction port during normal cleaning operation to prevent spillage of collected debris, while also allowing the cover to open during extraction of dust from the dust box by the base station. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the sealing frame and pivot cover disclosed by Bo as the one-way valve disclosed by KR862, to similarly cover the extraction port during normal cleaning operation to prevent spillage of collected debris, while also allowing the cover to open during extraction of dust from the dust box by the base station.
Regarding claim 10, Bo further discloses that the pivot-cover comprises a cover body and a pivot, the pivot is rotatably connected to the sealing frame, and the cover body is connected to the pivot; and wherein the pivot-cover further comprises a torsion spring (205), the torsion spring is sleeved onto the pivot (as seen in Figs. 10-11), and the torsion spring is configured to provide a closing torque when the cover body is rotated to be opened.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai et al. (CN 116919246 A) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Yi et al. (2023/0210332).
Dai and KR862 both disclose that the dust extraction duct connects to the dust extracting port of the dust box, but fails to disclose a sealing ring. Yi discloses another similar cleaning robot, also having a dust box with a dust extraction port engaged with a dust extraction duct for being emptied by a base station, and teaches that a seal ring may be provided between portions of the dust extraction duct (paragraph 49; disclosed as dust collection channels 131 and 132, but functioning as dust extraction channels in the same manner as Dai, KR862 and the current invention), which will be understood by anyone of ordinary skill in the art to be desirable for preventing any suction loss (via leakage between portions of the duct) to optimize airflow during evacuation of debris from the dust box. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide similar sealing ring(s) between additional connections along the dust extraction duct, as taught by Yi, including the interface between the dust extraction duct and the dust extracting port of the dust box, to prevent suction to optimize airflow during evacuation of debris from the dust box.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 24 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the examiner’s asserted location of the dust collection port of Dai is not accurate. However, the applicant fails to provide any reasoning why the location would not be accurate. The examiner previously relied upon, and still relies upon the KR862 reference to teach the actual location, along with common knowledge in the art that the location disclosed by KR862 is the most common location for a dust collection port for this type of robotic cleaner.
The applicant then argues that the prior art does not read on the new limitation that the ports are disposed at two opposite positions on a diagonal line of the dust box. However, as discussed above, the limitation is unclear and not considered to be supported for the most common interpretation of the term “diagonal line”. Therefore, the limitation, as best understood to be supported by the original application, is considered to be obvious over the prior art.
The applicant then argues that the location of dust collection port taught by the prior art is not considered to be adjacent to an end of the windward plate because the port is taught by be positioned centrally on the plate. However, as discussed in the rejections above, the term “adjacent” is vague and open to interpretation of being near or close to something, wherein even the central location of the dust collection port is considered to be “adjacent” to an end of the plate due to being near or close to the end, as well as being directly next to the end of the plate (with no other structure therebetween).
The applicant then argues that Dai does not anticipate the claimed dust box, relying on the examiner’s statement that Dai fails to disclose the structure of the dust box. However, due to the claim amendments, all claims are made obvious, as opposed to being anticipated, over the prior art. Regardless, the examiner maintains that certain structures can be inferred from the structure that is disclosed by Dai. Although Dai does not place specific focus on the structure of the dust box, the disclosure, along with the teaching of common structure by KR862, does make the claimed structure obvious, as discussed above.
The applicant then makes several arguments about how the prior art differs from the claimed invention, citing functions and intended use (creating vortexes in the airflow during evacuation, and passing through specific spatial positions) of the current invention that are not claimed. Thus, none of the arguments relating to the vortexes or intended air flow are considered to be persuasive.
The remainder of the remarks relies primarily on the Dai and/or KR862 references not meeting the previously addressed claim limitations and the examiner has clarified above, how the prior art makes obvious the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Each of Zhang et al. (CN 120770738 A) and Ryu et al. (KR 10-2025-0138687) disclose cleaning robots having similar structure and function as the applicant’s claimed invention. Additionally, Seokman et al. (KR 2022-0146292) discloses a robotic cleaner having a dust box that has very similar structure to the applicant’s claimed dust box, and may be applicable as additional teaching to modify the box of Dai to more closely align with the structure of the disclosed dust box of the current application.
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 BRYAN R MULLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4489. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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 at 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.
/BRYAN R MULLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723 6 May 2026
1 Collins English Dictionary — Complete & Unabridged" 2012 Digital Edition © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2012
Prosecution Insights