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 .
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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “filter unit” in claims 11, 15, and 21.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7, 9-11, and 15-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dyson et al. (US20130305483), hereinafter Dyson, in view of Jang et al. (US20150245754), hereinafter Jang, and as further evidenced by Koura et al. (20160095487), hereinafter Koura.
Regarding claim 1, Dyson discloses a robot cleaner (Fig. 1 element 2) comprising:
a cleaner body (Fig. 3 elements 4 and 60 and Fig. 4 element 8, where examiner specifies that element 24 is not part of the cleaner body (see 0045 for support of this), but that elements 34, 36, and 38 remain as part of the cleaner body (see 0047 for how these elements are integrally part of the body)) having:
a case (Fig. 4 element 8) forming an outer circumference of the cleaner body (Fig. 4, 0037, where “provides the robot 2 with a generally circular profile” corresponds to the case forming an outer circumference of the cleaner body) to accommodate a battery (Fig. 11 element 132) that supplies power (0068, Fig. 11) and, having a frontmost point (FP) defined as a point on the cleaner body that is furthest from a center of the cleaner body in a forward direction (F) (see annotated Fig. 14’ below); and
a dust container dock (Fig. 3 element 50) formed at a rear of the case (see annotated Fig. 14’’ below) and opened rearward and upward (Fig. 4);
a cleaner head (Fig. 2 element 24) having:
an introduction port (Fig. 2 element 26) to suck air containing foreign substances (0047);
a first area defined as an area protruding in the forward direction (F) (see annotated Fig. 14’’’ below); and
a second area defined as an area extending rearward from the first area (see annotated Fig. 14’’’ below) with a curvature (Fig. 3 shows the cleaning head (24) as being a curved structure) so as to be disposed to overlap with the case in a vertical direction (Fig. 3 and see annotated Fig. 14’’’ below);
a dust container (Fig. 1 element 62) detachably seated in the dust container dock (Fig. 1) to collect dust separated from air sucked through the introduction port (0047-0049 and 0060);
a fan motor (Fig. 14 element 58) that is disposed to a central portion of the cleaner body (see annotated Fig. 14’ below) and provides suction force to generate a rotating flow of the dust container to separate dust (0050 and 0072); and
an exhaust port (Fig. 12 the opening defined by element 144, 0070-0071) spaced apart in a lateral direction of the dust container mounted on the dust container dock (Fig. 10),
wherein an inner circumferential surface of the dust container dock (Figs. 4-5, 0048, where an internal wall corresponds to an inner circumferential surface of the dust container dock) includes:
a first opening (Figs. 3-5, where the peripheral opening of element 42 which mates with the entrance of the dust container (52) extending to the peripheral opening of element 42 which is flush with the inner circumferential surface of the dust container corresponds to a first opening) formed along a circumferential direction of the inner circumferential surface (Fig. 5) so that air introduced from the introduction port flows into an entrance (Fig. 4 element 52) of the dust container (0047 and 0049); and
a second opening (Fig. 7, where the peripheral opening of the inlet mouth (61) corresponds to a second opening) disposed to be spaced apart from the first opening in the circumferential direction (Figs. 5 and 7) and guiding air discharged from an exit (Fig. 5 element 98) of the dust container to the fan motor (0051 and 0063),
wherein a distance between the second opening and the central portion of the cleaner body is closer than a distance between the first opening and the central portion of the cleaner body (see annotated Fig. 14’ below, where the distance between the second opening and the central portion is zero and the distance between the first opening and the central portion is greater than zero), and
wherein an exhaust flow path (Fig. 14 and Fig. 12, 0070 and 0072, where the portion of the airflow path which starts with the airflow entering element 104 and then exiting elements 140 corresponds to an exhaust flow path) is formed in one area among left and right areas of a reference line passing through a center of the cleaner head and the center of the cleaner body (see annotated Fig. 14’’ below, where the exhaust flow path is formed in both the left and right areas (i.e. left and right end portions) which are defined by a reference line), and extends:
i) forward from the second opening (see annotated Fig. 14’’ below) to a fan exhaust port (Fig. 13 element 138, 0069) of the fan motor, and
ii) from the fan exhaust port to the exhaust port, so as to guide air passing through the fan motor and discharge the air to an outside (Fig. 14, 0072, where the air goes from the fan exhaust port to the exhaust port and continues to an outside (e.g. the area outside of the case) shown in Fig. 14).
Dyson fails to disclose the cleaner head provided in a shape that protrudes in the frontward direction (F) from the frontmost point (FP) of the case, and having:
the first area defined as an area protruding in the forward direction (F) from the frontmost point (FP) and having a front end portion disposed at a position spaced apart forward from the frontmost point (FP); and
the exhaust port is formed at the rear of the case, and the exhaust flow path extends rearward from the fan exhaust port in a direction opposite to the cleaner head.
Jang is also concerned with a robot cleaner and teaches the cleaner head (Fig. 1 element 200) is provided in a shape that protrudes in the frontward direction (F) from the frontmost point (FP) of the case (see annotated Fig. 2 below), and having: the first area defined as an area protruding in the forward direction (F) from the frontmost point (FP) and having a front end portion disposed at a position spaced apart forward from the frontmost point (FP) (see annotated Fig. 2 below, where the front end portion and the portion of the rear end portion which protrudes in the forward direction from the frontmost point corresponds to a first area). It 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 to modify the robot cleaner of Dyson to make the cleaner head provided in a shape that protrudes in the frontward direction (F) from the frontmost point (FP) of the case, and having: the first area defined as an area protruding in the forward direction (F) from the frontmost point (FP) and having a front end portion disposed at a position spaced apart forward from the frontmost point (FP), as taught by Jang, because Jang teaches that having the cleaner head extend beyond the frontmost point of the case allows for detecting a fall hazard and changing the driving direction before the case falls (0081).
Dyson, as modified, fails to disclose the exhaust port is formed at the rear of the case, and the exhaust flow path extends rearward from the fan exhaust port in a direction opposite to the cleaner head. Pursuant of MPEP 2144.04-VI-C, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the exhaust port be located rear of the rotation axis of the main wheels, and therefore at the rear of the case, since it has been held that mere rearrangement of parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. Examiner notes that Applicant’s specification fails to provide any criticality for this arrangement and that one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to rearrange the parts of the robot cleaner of Dyson, as modified, as many different arrangements of these components are known, as evidenced by Koura which shows a different arrangement than that shown in Dyson. Examiner also finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to rearrange the parts to achieve an optimum distribution of weight in order to balance stability, maneuverability, and cleaning efficiency of the robot cleaner.
Dyson, as modified, then yields the exhaust flow path extends rearward from the fan exhaust port in a direction opposite to the cleaner head (Dyson, with the exhaust port now located at the rear of the case, the exhaust flow path will extend to the right (Dyson, see annotated Fig. 14’’ below) and rearward from the fan exhaust port, which is a direction opposite to the cleaner head (e.g. a direction which is not in a direction towards the cleaner head) in order to reach the exhaust port).
PNG
media_image1.png
711
704
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
559
727
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
711
662
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
669
757
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Dyson, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the cleaner head defines a communication path (Dyson, Fig. 3, 0047, where the path that the air takes from the introduction port (26) to element 34 corresponds to a communication path) to the cleaner body, and the communication path is positioned under a bottom surface of the cleaner body (Dyson, Fig. 3 the bottom surface of element 34 is above the communication path as the opening of element 34 delimits the end of the communication path).
Regarding claim 4, Dyson, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the dust container protrudes rearward of the rear of the case when the dust container is seated on the dust container dock (Dyson, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, Dyson, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the introduction port is connected to a bottom surface of the cleaner body (Dyson, Fig. 3, 0047, where the air goes from the introduction port (26) directly to the opening in the bottom surface of element 34, which is part of the cleaner body, and therefore the introduction port is connected to a bottom surface of the front side of the cleaner body), and wherein an inhalation flow path (Dyson, Fig. 3, 0047 and 0049, where the portion of the airflow path which starts flowing through element 34 and then exits into element 42 corresponds to an inhalation flow path) is disposed in the cleaner body and upwardly extends from the introduction port to the first opening (Dyson, Figs. 3 and 5, 0047 and 0049).
Regarding claim 9, Dyson, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the entrance of the dust container communicates with the first opening when the dust container is seated on the dust container dock (Dyson, 0049), and wherein the entrance is located in one side of the reference line (Dyson, see annotated Fig. 14’’ above).
Regarding claim 10, Dyson, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 7, as described above, and further discloses a battery (Dyson, Fig. 11 element 132).
Dyson, as modified, fails to disclose the battery is disposed to be spaced apart from a center of the dust container in the lateral direction. Pursuant of MPEP 2144.04-VI-C, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the battery be disposed to be spaced apart from a center of the dust container in the lateral direction., since it has been held that mere rearrangement of parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. Examiner notes that Applicant’s specification fails to provide any criticality for this arrangement and that one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to rearrange the parts of the robot cleaner of Dyson, as modified, as many different arrangements of these components are known, as evidenced by Koura which shows a different arrangement than that shown in Dyson. Examiner also finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to rearrange the parts to achieve an optimum distribution of weight in order to balance stability, maneuverability, and cleaning efficiency of the robot cleaner.
Regarding claim 11, Dyson, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses a filter unit (Dyson, Fig. 12 the portion of element 144 beyond the opening of element 144 which defines the exhaust port, element 146, and element 142) having a filter case (Dyson, Fig. 12 the portion of element 144 beyond the opening of element 144 which defines the exhaust port and element 142) and a filter (Dyson, Fig. 12 element 146) received in the filter case (Dyson, Fig. 12, 0071), wherein the filter unit is positioned in front of the exhaust port (Dyson, Fig. 12) to filter air passing through the second opening (Dyson, Fig. 14, 0071, where the arrows show the airflow path, and the air which passes through the second opening is filtered by the filter unit), wherein the exhaust port and the filter unit are arranged so as to be spaced apart from each other in a front-rear direction of the cleaner body (Dyson, Fig. 12, where the exhaust port is offset in a front-rear direction to the filter unit as air would first travel through the exhaust port and then through the filter unit).
Regarding claim 15, Dyson, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 11, as described above, and further discloses the filter unit is disposed on the exhaust flow path (Dyson, Figs. 12 and 14, where the air needing to pass through at least element 146 of the filter unit before exiting through elements 140 means that the filter unit is disposed on the exhaust flow path) and detachably inserted to the cleaner body (Dyson, Figs. 10-11, 0067 and 0071).
Regarding claim 16, Dyson, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 10, as described above, and further discloses the inhalation flow path is configured to extend in a rear direction of the cleaner body so as to avoid the battery (Dyson, Figs. 3 and 14).
Regarding claim 17, Dyson, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 10, as described above, and further discloses the inhalation flow path is configured to extend in a rear direction of the cleaner body so as to be spaced apart from the battery (Dyson, Figs. 3 and 14).
Regarding claim 18, Dyson, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the cleaner body further has a wheel unit (Dyson, Fig. 2 elements 20, 0040 where the simple wheel arrangement would be used), and a controller (Dyson, Fig. 15 element 200) controlling driving of the wheel unit (Dyson, 0075), wherein the wheel unit includes main wheels (Dyson, Fig. 2 elements 20, 0040 where the simple wheel arrangement would be used and the main wheels are a subset of the wheel unit which contains the entirety of the wheel unit) provided at respective sides of the cleaner body (Dyson, Fig. 2), and wherein the cleaner head is located in front of a rotation axis of the main wheels and a center of a cyclone flow of the dust container is located rear of the rotation axis of the main wheels (Dyson, see annotated Fig. 2 below where the cleaner head, which was relocated foremost of the cleaner body in claim 1, is in front of the rotation axis and the center of the cyclone flow of the dust container is located rear of the rotation axis).
PNG
media_image5.png
535
555
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19, Dyson, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 18, as described above, but fails to disclose the exhaust port is located rear of the rotation axis of the main wheels. Pursuant of MPEP 2144.04-VI-C, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the exhaust port be located rear of the rotation axis of the main wheels, since it has been held that mere rearrangement of parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. Examiner notes that Applicant’s specification fails to provide any criticality for this arrangement and that one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to rearrange the parts of the robot cleaner of Dyson, as modified, as many different arrangements of these components are known, as evidenced by Koura which shows a different arrangement than that shown in Dyson. Examiner also finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to rearrange the parts to achieve an optimum distribution of weight in order to balance stability, maneuverability, and cleaning efficiency of the robot cleaner.
Regarding claim 20, Dyson, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the first opening and the second opening are positioned rear of the fan motor (Dyson, Fig. 14).
Regarding claim 21, Dyson, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 15, as described above, and further discloses the filter unit and the exhaust port are positioned on a same side with respect to the reference line (Dyson, see annotated Fig. 14’’ above, where the filter unit and exhaust port are both located together (shown in Fig. 12) and therefore, when the exhaust port was repositioned to the rear of the case, the filter unit was also relocated to that same location, which would be on one side of the reference line shown in annotated Fig. 14’’ above).
Regarding claim 22, Dyson, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses both left and right end portions of the cleaner head extend to position spaced apart leftward and rightward from the frontmost point (FP) of the case, respectively (Dyson, see annotated Fig. 14’ and 14’’ above).
Regarding claim 23, Dyson, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the first opening and the second opening are positioned laterally with respect to the reference line (Dyson, see annotated Fig. 14’’ above).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dyson et al. (US20130305483), hereinafter Dyson, in view of Jang et al. (US20150245754), hereinafter Jang, as further evidenced by Koura et al. (20160095487), hereinafter Koura, and in further view of Schnittman et al. (US9480381), hereinafter Schnittman.
Regarding claim 24, Dyson, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to disclose the cleaner head further has a cliff sensor that senses topography thereunder is disposed at the front end portion of a lower side of the cleaner head.
Schnittman is also concerned with a robot cleaner and teaches the cleaner head (Fig. 4 elements 500 and 700, specifically element 700 corresponding to element 210) further has a cliff sensor (Fig. 4 element 710 which is within the cleaner head) that senses topography thereunder (5:12-23) is disposed at the front end portion of a lower side of the cleaner head (Fig. 4 shows the cliff sensor disposed on a lower side of the cleaner head and 5:12-23, where the cliff sensor being “disposed at the respective right and left corners of a forward portion of the robot” corresponds to the cliff sensor being disposed at the front end portion of the cleaner head). It 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 to modify the robot cleaner of Dyson, as modified, to include a cliff sensor that senses topography thereunder is disposed at the front end portion of a lower side of the cleaner head, as taught by Schnittman, because Schnittman teaches that having cliff sensors arranged as claimed “allows the robot to detect when a either of the front corners swing over a cliff edge, so as to avoid moving the drive wheels any closer to the cliff edge” (5:20-23).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the new limitations surrounding the first and second areas recited in claim 1 have the purported benefit of “allowing the robot cleaner to be smaller or more compact in size while simultaneously expanding the front cleaning area of the cleaner body”. Examiner was unable to find these purported benefits anywhere in Applicant’s specification and Applicant has not provided any reasoning as to why the new limitations surrounding the first and second areas provide such benefits.
Applicant argues that the instant application provides “expected technical benefits” of noise reduction and cleaning performance (see first paragraph on page 14). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds that the instant application does provide noise reduction benefits when the fan exhaust port is “adjacent to a central portion of the cleaner body”, but not when the fan motor is “disposed to a central portion of the cleaner body” as recited in claim 1. Examiner further finds that examiner was unable to find any mention in Applicant’s specification that cleaning performance was enhanced “by preventing dust scattering in the front cleaning area’ due to a forward exhaust of filtered air”.
Applicant argues that Dyson fails to disclose the new limitations surrounding “a first area” and “a second area” as recited in claim 1. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds that while Dyson does fail to disclose the claimed first area, annotated Fig. 14’’’ and Fig. 3 of Dyson does disclose the limitations surrounding the second area. Examiner further finds that Dyson, in view of Jang, teaches the limitations surrounding the first area. See rejection of claim 1 above.
Applicant argues that Dyson fails to disclose “a first opening” and “a second opening…where a distance between the second opening and the central portion of the cleaner body is closer than a distance between the first opening and the central portion of the cleaner body, as recited in claim 1”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds that annotated Fig. 14’ of Dyson above shows this limitation. See rejection of claim 1 above.
Applicant argues that paragraphs 0177-0187 of Applicant’s specification provide criticality for all of the claimed arrangement of parts within the claimed robot cleaner. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds that paragraphs 0177-0187 of Applicant’s specification merely describes the arrangement of the parts and the only criticality discussed is “The fan exhaust port may be provided adjacent to a central portion of the cleaner body 110 to reduce noise discharged to the outside” found in paragraph 0185, and even this is broad as “adjacent to” under BRI is being interpreted by examiner to mean “next to”, and examiner finds that any element within the robot cleaner are generally “next to” any other element of the robot cleaner.
Applicant argues that the claimed air flow structure is critical because it “inherently prevents secondary contamination because exhaust air is directed exclusively toward a previously cleaned region (Cleaned Area), not toward an uncleaned region in front of the robot cleaner, such that the air flow structure of claim 1 provides a desirable arrangement structure for achieving the above-described effect, that is not taught in the applied references” (first paragraph of page 20). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds that not scattering dust in an area intended to be cleaned by arranging the suction pickup to be on one end of the robot cleaner and the exhaust to be on an opposite end of the robot cleaner is not an unexpected result, and that Applicant has not claimed that this result is unexpected. Examiner further finds that paragraph 0041 of Dyson states that the robot cleaner is capable of being “driven in forward and reverse directions”. This means that the exhaust can be located on either end of the robot cleaner because the robot cleaner can then just be operated to drive in whichever direction does not cause scattering of dust in the area intended to be cleaned.
Applicant appears to be arguing that modifying the exhaust flow path of Dyson would not be possible as the air must flow through the battery compartment and that the battery compartment would have to be relocated to the rear of the cleaner body to make this happen, which would destroy examiner’s motivation of weight distribution . Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds that relocating the battery compartment of Dyson to the rear of the cleaner body is not necessary to meet the claimed exhaust flow path as there are several other options, such as adding a duct running rearward between the battery compartment and the exhaust port. Examiner also notes that the airflow does not necessarily have to flow through the battery compartment as the air flowing through the battery for cooling is discussed as a benefit, but not the sole purpose of the invention (see 0073 of Dyson). See rejection of claim 1 above.
Applicant argues that the exhaust flow path cannot be considered to be “formed clearly in ‘one side area’” (first full paragraph on page 22). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds that the exhaust flow path being “formed in one area among left and right areas of a reference line” does not limit the exhaust flow path from being formed in both the left and right areas. Examiner further finds that even if the entirety of the path was required to be only in one of the left or right areas, that one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of making that rearrangement of parts for the same reasons as the rearrangement of parts made in claim 1. See rejection of claim 1 above.
Applicant argues that Koura does not cure the deficiencies of Dyson because Koura teaches a different flow path and orientation of parts than what is claimed. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds that Koura is only being relied upon as an evidentiary reference to show that multiple orientation of parts within a robot vacuum are known as support for the rearrangement of parts rejection.
Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to move the exhaust port to the rear of the cleaner body as it would reduce the cooling effect on the battery, increase flow loss, and it would be difficult to find a proper placement of the exhaust port. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of finding a proper placement of the exhaust port and that one of ordinary skill in the art would also be capable of weighing the pros and cons of moving the exhaust port to the rear of the cleaner body to optimize the weight distribution in order to balance stability, maneuverability, and cleaning efficiency of the robot cleaner, and conclude that moving the exhaust port to the rear is beneficial depending on the intended use of the robot cleaner.
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 CALEB A HOLIZNA whose telephone number is (571)272-5659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-4:30.
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, Monica Carter can be reached on 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.
/C.A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3723 /MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723