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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/5/2026 has been entered.
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:
“Filter assembly” in claim 4, because (A) the term “assembly” is a generic placeholder, see above; (B) “filter air” designates a function performed by the assembly, and (C) no additional structure is specified, to support the claimed function of “filter air” – in effect the language is equivalent to a predetermined means for filtering air. Examiner is interpreting “filter assembly” to be a filter case and a filter based on the discussion of “filter unit”, which examiner finds is the equivalent of the claimed “filter assembly”, in at least paragraph 0290 of Applicant’s specification.
“Sensing unit” in claim 20, because (A) the term “unit” is a generic placeholder, see above; (B) “sensing” designates a function performed by the unit, and (C) no additional structure is specified, to support the claimed function of “sensing” – in effect the language is equivalent to a predetermined means for sensing. Examiner is interpreting “sensing unit” to be a first image sensor and a second image sensor based on the discussion of “sensing unit” in at least paragraphs 0069 and 0076 of Applicant’s specification.
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.
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 assembly” in claim 12.
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 § 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.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Regarding claim 23, it is unclear to examiner how the cleaner body including both “a mounting projection” and “a mounting groove” is capable of preventing “rotation and to mount the dust container at a regular position”, when there is no corresponding structure of the dust container which interacts with the projection or groove. Is one of the projection or groove meant to be located on the dust container? For the sake of compact prosecution and for use in this office action, examiner is interpreting “the cleaner body includes a mounting projection and a mounting groove configured to prevent rotation and to mount the dust container at a regular position” to be --the cleaner body includes a mounting projection and the dust container includes a mounting groove configured to prevent rotation and to mount the dust container at a regular position--.
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 1-4, 7, 10-12, 15-19, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dyson et al. (US20130305483), hereinafter Dyson, in view of Jang et al. (US10130234), hereinafter Jang, and as evidenced by Koura et al. (US20160095487), hereinafter Koura.
Regarding claim 1, Dyson discloses a robot cleaner (Fig. 1 element 2) comprising:
a cleaner body (Fig. 3 elements 4 and 6 and Fig. 10 element 128, where examiner specifies that element 24 is not part of the cleaner body (see 0045 for support of this));
a dust container accommodation portion (Fig. 3 element 50) formed at a rear of the cleaner body relative to a forward direction of travel of the cleaner (Fig. 3, where the direction of arrow A shown corresponds to a forward direction), the dust container accommodation portion being recessed toward the front and open rearward (Fig. 3);
a cleaner head (Fig. 2 element 24) provided in a shape and positioned relative to a frontmost point (FP) of the cleaner body (see annotated Fig. 14’ below) and configured to suck air containing dust (0042), the frontmost point (FP) of the cleaner body being defined as a point on the cleaner body that is furthest from a center of the cleaner body in the forward direction (F) (see annotated Fig. 14’ below), and the cleaner head having:
an introduction port (Fig. 2 element 26) to suck air containing foreign substances (0047);
a first part defined as an area defined as an area protruding in the forward direction (F) (see annotated Fig. 14’ below, where first area corresponds to a first part); and
a second part defined as an area defined as an area extending rearward from the first area (see annotated Fig. 14’ below, where second area corresponds to a second part) 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) received in the dust container accommodation portion (Fig. 1) and having a cyclone therein (Fig. 6a element 68, 0053), the dust container being configured to collect dust filtered from sucked air (0060);
a fan motor (Fig. 14 element 58) positioned in front of the dust container accommodation portion (Fig. 14);
a battery (Figs. 11 and 13 element 132) provided in the cleaner body so as to be spaced from the fan motor (Fig. 14, 0068);
an inhalation flow path (Fig. 3, 0047, where the flow path defined by elements 34, 36, and 38 corresponds to an inhalation flow path) connecting the introduction port to a first opening (Fig. 3 element 42, 0047) formed in an inner circumferential surface of the dust container accommodation portion (Fig. 4, 0048, where the surface shown in Fig. 4 of “an internal wall” excluding the bottom surface (48) corresponds to an inner circumferential surface) and extending to one side of the cleaner (see annotated Fig. 14’ below) body while avoiding the battery (Fig. 14 shows the inhalation flow path (shown as element 34 in Fig. 14) extending to one side of the cleaner body and shows the inhalation flow path as not overlapping with element 126, which houses the battery, and therefore the airflow which travels along the inhalation flow path avoids the battery) and passing over the fan motor (Fig. 3 shows at least a portion of element 42, which the inhalation flow path directly connects to, as being at a higher elevation than at least a portion of the fan motor, and therefore at least a portion of the inhalation flow path is also at a higher elevation than (i.e. passes over) at least a portion of the fan motor);
an exhaust port (Fig. 11 elements 140) to discharge air passed through the dust container to outside of the cleaner body (0070, where the air that passes through the dust container also passes through the exhaust port to outside the cleaner body), the exhaust port is laterally spaced from the dust container received in the dust container accommodation portion (Figs. 13 and 14, where examiner notes that any placement of the exhaust port along the rear of the cleaner body will meet this limitation as the cleaner body and the dust container are separate elements and will therefore have some amount of horizontal separation); and
an exhaust flow path (Fig. 14, where the arrows starting at the exit of element 10 and going through to element 128 corresponds to an exhaust flow path) connecting the exhaust port to a second opening (Fig. 7 element 61, where Fig. 14 shows the airflow connection between the exhaust port and the second opening, where this airflow connection takes place through element 108 shown in Fig. 7) formed in the inner circumferential surface of the dust container accommodation portion (Fig. 7), the second opening being formed adjacent to the first opening at a prescribed height of the inner circumferential surface (Figs. 5 and 7 show the first and second opening as being adjacent to (i.e. next to) one another and the second opening is formed in the inner circumferential surface of the dust container accommodation portion and does not change location and therefore is formed at a prescribed height of the inner circumferential surface), wherein the exhaust flow path is arranged at the one side in the cleaner body (see annotated Fig. 14’ below).
Dyson fails to disclose that the cleaner head protrudes in the forward direction (F) from the frontmost point (FP) of the cleaner body, 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); the exhaust port being formed at the rear of the cleaner body, and wherein the exhaust flow path is rearwardly extended after passing through the fan motor and is arranged so as to bypass the battery.
Jang is also concerned with a robot cleaner and teaches that the cleaner head (Fig. 2 element 200) protrudes in the forward direction (F) from the frontmost point (FP) of the cleaner body (see annotated Fig. 2 below, where element 300 corresponds to the cleaner body), and 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 have the cleaner head protrude in the forward direction (F) from the frontmost point (FP) of the cleaner body, 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 this configuration of a cleaner head relative to a cleaner body allows the robot cleaner to "efficiently inlet dust positioned near the surface of a wall without a separate side brush" (6:43-51).
Dyson, as modified, fails to disclose the exhaust port being formed at the rear of the cleaner body, and wherein the exhaust flow path is rearwardly extended after passing through the fan motor and is arranged so as to bypass the battery. 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 formed at the rear of the cleaner body and to arrange the battery so that the exhaust flow path bypasses the battery 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 these arrangements 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 et al. (20160095487) which shows a different arrangement than that shown in Dyson, as modified. 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.
Dyson, as modified, then yields the exhaust flow path is rearwardly extended after passing through the fan motor (Fig. 14, where when the exhaust port is located in the rear of the cleaner body, as described in the modification above, the air will flow forward into the fan motor and then flow rearward to the exhaust port after passing through the fan motor).
PNG
media_image1.png
711
705
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
756
834
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Dyson, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the dust container accommodation portion is defined by a bottom surface (Dyson, Fig. 4 element 48) and a wall (Dyson, Fig. 4, 0048, where an internal wall excluding the bottom surface (48) corresponds to a wall),
wherein the bottom surface is configured to support the dust container (Dyson, Fig. 1),
wherein opposite ends of the wall define a rear end of the cleaner body (Dyson, Fig. 4 where the rear end of the cleaner body is a subset of the wall which includes the entirety of the wall), and
wherein, when the dust container is seated in the dust container accommodation portion, at least a portion of the dust container is surrounded by the wall (Dyson, Fig. 1), and a remaining portion of the dust container protrudes rearward from the rear end of the cleaner body (Dyson, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Dyson, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the fan motor is located between the cleaner head and the dust container (Dyson, Fig. 14) and configured to generate a suction force (Dyson, 0050),
wherein the fan motor is disposed in a central portion of the cleaner body (Dyson, see annotated Fig. 14 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
672
678
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Dyson, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 3, as described above, and further discloses a filter assembly (Dyson, Fig. 12 elements 144 and 146) disposed at a front of the exhaust port (Dyson, Fig. 12, with the exhaust port moved to the rear from claim 1 which would also move the filter unit to the rear, the filter assembly is disposed at a front of the exhaust port) to filter air exhausted from the dust container (Dyson, 0071),
wherein, relative to a first reference line that passes in a front-rear direction through a center of the cleaner head and a center of the dust container, the exhaust port is disposed on one side of the first reference line (Dyson, see annotated Fig. 14 above, where at least a portion of the exhaust port is disposed on one side of the first reference line, where the one side can be arbitrarily chosen between either the side above or the side below the first reference line), and
wherein the filter assembly is disposed on the one side of the first reference line (Dyson, see annotated Fig. 14 above, where at least a portion of the filter assembly is disposed on the one side of the first reference line).
Regarding claim 7, Dyson, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 4, as described above, and further discloses relative to a second reference line that passes in a left-right direction through a center of the cleaner body, the dust container and the exhaust port are disposed rearward of the second reference line (Dyson, see annotated Fig. 14 above where the second reference line passes through a center of the cleaner body which is defined by the first reference line and when the exhaust port is moved to the rear of the cleaner body, as described in the rejection of claim 1, this limitation is met).
Regarding claim 10, Dyson, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses a rear end of the dust container protrudes rearward from a rear end of the cleaner body when the dust container is accommodated in the dust container accommodation portion (Dyson, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, Dyson, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the cleaner body includes a dust container supporting portion (Dyson, Fig. 4 element 48) configured to support a bottom surface of the dust container (Dyson, Fig. 1) by forming a lower portion of the dust container accommodation portion (Dyson, Fig. 4 element 48, where the lower portion of the dust container accommodation portion is a subset of the dust container accommodation portion which includes the entirety of the dust container accommodation portion),
wherein when the dust container is disposed in the dust container accommodation portion, at least a portion of the bottom surface of the dust container overlaps the dust container supporting portion in a vertical direction (Dyson, Fig. 1, a vertical line would go through the dust container and the dust container supporting portion), and a rear end of the dust container supporting portion is disposed in front of a rear end of the dust container (Dyson, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 12, Dyson, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses a filter assembly (Dyson, Fig. 12 elements 144 and 146) received inside the cleaner body for filtering air discharged from the dust container (Dyson, 0071),
wherein the filter assembly includes:
a filter case (Dyson, Fig. 12 element 144) hinge-coupled to an inner wall of the cleaner body to be rotatable (Dyson, 0067, where “the panel 128 could be arranged to pivot open” meets this limitation); and
a filter (Dyson, Fig. 12 element 146) received in the filter case (Dyson, Fig. 12, 0071).
Regarding claim 15, Dyson, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses at least a portion of the cleaner body is formed in a circular shape (Dyson, Fig. 3, 0048, where at least element 48, which is a part of the cleaner body, is formed in a circular shape), and
the cleaner head extends to right and left sides of the robot cleaner from the frontmost point of the cleaner body (Dyson, see annotated Fig. 14’ above).
Regarding claim 16, Dyson, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses an upper surface of the cleaner head is convexly curved (Dyson, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 17, Dyson, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the rear edge of the cleaner head is disposed to overlap a bottom of the cleaner body in a vertical direction (Dyson, Fig. 3 and see annotated Fig. 14’ above).
Regarding claim 18, Dyson, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the exhaust port is formed in the cleaner body along a height direction of the rear of the cleaner body (Dyson, Fig. 11, there is a height component to the exhaust port and the exhaust port is formed at the rear of the cleaner body as described in the rejection of claim 1, and therefore the exhaust port is formed along a height direction of the rear of the cleaner body)
Regarding claim 19, Dyson, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the cleaner body includes an upper wall (Dyson, Fig. 4, the upper surface of element 8), a lower wall (Dyson, Fig. 4 element 48) and a circumferential wall connecting the upper wall and the lower wall (Dyson, Fig. 4, 0048, where an internal wall excluding the bottom surface (48) corresponds to a circumferential wall), the circumferential wall extending in a vertical direction (Dyson, Fig. 4),
wherein the upper wall, the lower wall and the circumferential wall defining an outer appearance of the cleaner body (Dyson, Fig. 4), and
wherein a portion of the circumferential wall and a portion of the lower wall define the dust container accommodation portion (Dyson, Fig. 1 and Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 22, Dyson, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the first opening and the second opening are disposed at a same height in the inner circumferential surface of the dust container accommodation portion (Dyson, Figs. 3 and 5, where Fig. 3 shows the second opening (61) extending the height direction along substantially the entire height of the inner circumferential surface and Fig. 5 shows the first opening (labeled in Fig. 3 as element 42) substantially centrally located along the height direction of the inner circumferential and because the height of the first and second openings can be taken anywhere along the height direction where the opening is present, examiner finds that any height taken for the first opening has a corresponding (i.e. the same) second opening height).
Regarding claim 23, Dyson, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the cleaner body includes a mounting projection (Dyson, Fig. 4 element 67) and the dust container includes a mounting groove (Dyson, see annotated Fig. 4 below) configured to prevent rotation and to mount the dust container at a regular position (Dyson, 0053).
PNG
media_image4.png
610
538
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dyson et al. (US20130305483), hereinafter Dyson, in view of Jang et al. (US10130234), hereinafter Jang, as evidenced by Koura et al. (US20160095487), hereinafter Koura, and in further view of Jeon (US20060254226).
Regarding claim 5, Dyson, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 4, as described above, and further discloses the dust container includes: an entrance (Dyson, Fig. 4 the portion of element 52 which directly opens into element 62) and an exit (Dyson, Fig. 5 element 98) disposed side by side along a circumference of the dust container (Dyson, Figs. 4 and 5) and communicating with the first opening and the second opening, respectively (Dyson, 0049 and 0063, where the exit communicates with the second opening through element 108).
Dyson, as modified, fails to disclose a guider extending downwardly inclined along an inner circumference of the dust container to separate a flow of air introduced into the entrance from a flow of air discharged toward the exit.
Jeon is also concerned with suction cleaner and teaches a guider (Fig. 4 element 340) extending downwardly inclined along an inner circumference of the dust container (Fig. 3 element 100) to separate a flow of air (0045 and 0062) introduced into the entrance (Fig. 8 the lower opening of Fig. 210) from a flow of air discharged toward the exit (Fig. 8 element 523). Pursuant of MPEP 2144.06-II, it has been held obvious to substitute equivalents for the same purpose. Dyson, as modified, discloses the invention except that the separation of flow is performed by the first opening (52) which is horizontal (Dyson, Fig. 4, 0055) instead of a guider extending downwardly inclined along an inner circumference of the dust container. Jeon shows that a guider extending downwardly inclined along an inner circumference of the dust container is an equivalent structure known in the art (i.e. both structures are used to create a swirling/circulating airflow in a cyclone separator). Therefore, because these flow separator structure types were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to substitute a guider extending downwardly inclined along an inner circumference of the dust container for a flow separator structure which uses the first opening (52) which is horizontal.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dyson et al. (US20130305483), hereinafter Dyson, in view of Jang et al. (US10130234), hereinafter Jang, as evidenced by Koura et al. (US20160095487), hereinafter Koura, and further evidenced by Jang et al. (US20150245754), hereinafter Jang’.
Regarding claim 14, Dyson, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the cleaner head includes:
a case (Dyson, Fig. 4 element 27 and Fig. 5 element 29) defining an appearance of the cleaner head (Dyson, Figs. 4 and 5); and
the robot cleaner further comprises a charging terminal (Dyson, Fig. 15 element 216, 0078) to connect to a charging station (Dyson, 0078, where the power input corresponds to a charging station).
Dyson, as modified, fails to disclose the charging terminal being at a front end portion of the case, and wherein the charging terminal is exposed to the forward 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 charging terminal be at a front end portion of the case, and wherein the charging terminal is exposed to the forward 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 Jang’ which shows a different arrangement than that shown in Dyson (see Jang’ Fig. 8 elements 245). 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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dyson et al. (US20130305483), hereinafter Dyson, in view of Jang et al. (US10130234), hereinafter Jang, as evidenced by Koura et al. (US20160095487), hereinafter Koura, and further evidenced by Vicenti (US20160103451).
Regarding claim 20, Dyson, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 19, as described above, and further discloses the cleaner body comprises a wheel unit (Dyson, Fig. 2 elements 20, 0040 where the simple wheel arrangement is used) and a controller (Dyson, Fig. 15 element 200) controlling driving of the wheel unit on a travel surface (Dyson, 0075),
wherein the robot cleaner further comprises a sensing unit (Dyson, 0075, where sensor suite corresponds to sensing unit).
Dyson, as modified, fails to disclose a top end of the sensing unit is located higher from the travel surface in a vertical direction than the upper wall. 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 sensing unit be above the upper wall instead of below the upper wall 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 Vicenti which shows a different arrangement than that shown in Dyson, as modified (see Vicenti Fig. 1 element 116). 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 or to allow the sensing unit to sense obstacles in multiple directions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that modifying Dyson with the teachings of Jang still fails to disclose “a structure in which the rear region of the cleaner head and the front end portion of the cleaner body overlap each other in the vertical direction” because Jang does not disclose this. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds that while Jang does not disclose this limitation, Dyson does (see rejection of claim 1 above, specifically the rejection of the “second part”) and that because examiner is not relying upon Jang for this limitation, examiner finds this argument unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that Koura does not cure the deficiencies of Dyson because Koura teaches a different orientation of parts than the claimed orientations in claim 1. Examiner finds that Koura is only being relied upon as an evidentiary reference to show that multiple orientation of parts within a robot cleaner are known as support for the rearrangement of parts rejection. See rejection of claim 1 above.
Applicant argues that Vincenti also fails to cure the deficiencies of Dyson regarding the limitations of claim 1. Examiner notes that Vincenti is not being relied upon for the rejection of claim 1, and examiner further notes that Vincenti (used in claim 20) is being used in the same manner as Koura, which is not to teach the specific claimed structure or orientation of the claims, but as evidence to show that multiple orientation of parts within a robot cleaner are known as support for the rearrangement of parts rejection.
Applicant argues that the rearrangement of parts rejection of claim 1 for the different claimed orientation of parts is improper because “the Office Action does not explain the specific structural modifications necessary to alter DYSON et al. into the airflow-path architecture recited in claim 1”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds that while there are multiple possible configurations where the robot cleaner has the claimed orientation of parts, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references; rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller,642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Examiner finds that because Applicant has not given any criticality to the specific claimed orientations of components within the robot cleaner, a rearrangement of parts rejection is appropriate, particularly because different orientations of components claimed in claim 1 within a robot cleaner are known, as evidenced by Koura.
Examiner notes that this response also applies to Applicant’s argument on the last paragraph of page 20 of Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks.
Applicant argues that examiner’s finding that ‘if the exhaust port is moved to the rear, the air will flow forward through the fan motor and then be exhausted rearward’ is improper because it “presumes a functional result without evidence”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds that when the exhaust port is located on the rear of the body (e.g. to a location which is rearward of the fan motor), then no matter how the airflow route is configured, if the airflow route extends to the exhaust port, then the airflow must at some point after exiting the fan motor be exhausted rearwardly.
Applicant argues that the motivation of optimum weight distribution “is, at most, an abstract design goal and not a concrete motivation to combine references in the particular manner asserted” and that changes to airflow architecture affect other metrics such as “pressure loss, cooling performance, and packaging/module placement constraints, and weight distribution alone does not reasonably explain how the specific recited airflow path and spatial relationship recited would be derived”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds that changes to the weight distribution on a robot vacuum cleaner directly affects the cleaning power such as suction power and roller brush agitation power and that one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of weighing the pros and cons of adjusting the weight distribution in view of possible suction loss, cooling performance, and packaging/module placement constraints and find that the weight distribution is beneficial depending on the intended improvement (e.g. focusing more on improving roller brush agitation power).
Applicant argues that the exhaust port (140) of Dyson cannot be relocated to the rear of the cleaner body and cannot have the same claimed flow path as claimed in claim 1 because Dyson teaches an entirely different structure and flow path which are used to dissipate heat in a battery pack and that relocating the exhaust port to the rear of the cleaner body and rearranging the flow path to the claimed flow path would destroy the intended function of cooling the battery (132). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds that the primary function of the robot cleaner of Dyson is not to cool a battery but to provide suction cleaning (see 0073 where Dyson contemplates the cooling of the battery as a benefit, but not the sole purpose of the invention) and therefore the modifications made do not destroy the intended function of Dyson as the robot cleaner of Dyson would still be capable of suction cleaning.
To examiner’s best understanding, it appears that Applicant argues that Dyson placing the exhaust to the rear of the body would cause ‘dust scattering’. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner 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.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights