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
1. 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 limitations are: the anti-rotation assembly is configured to restrict the rotation member from rotating the main body about the rotation axis unless a force exceeding a predetermined level is applied to the anti-rotation assembly in independent claims 1 and 20 according to the specification at page 17 the anti-rotation assembly (170) includes an elastic member (173) such that when the second rotation member (164) rotates in one direction, the elastic member (173) provides a restoration force in the opposite direction. Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 these limitations 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 Page 5 Application/Control Number: 18/553,938 Art Unit: 3723 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. Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) 2.
Rejection 35 U.S.C. § 112
2. 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.
The term “the anti-rotation assembly is configured to restrict the second rotation member from rotating the main body about the second rotation axis unless a force exceeding a predetermined level is applied to the anti-rotation assembly” in independent claims 1 and 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “unless a force exceeding a predetermined level is applied to the anti-rotation assembly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art cannot ascertain what a “force exceeding a predetermined level” actually is since it is not defined in the specification.
Claims 2-18 are rejected for their dependency on claim 1.
Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)
3. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 14-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication (2011/0113590) to Boyes.
Regarding independent claim 1, Boyes discloses a cleaning module (12) configured to suck in outside air; a main body (11) configured to provide a suction force to the cleaning module (12) (See paragraph [0027]); a first rotation member (32) disposed between the cleaning module (12) and the main body (11), having a first rotation axis (axial direction) disposed in left and right directions, and configured to rotate the main body (11) about the first rotation axis (axial direction) (See paragraph [0028]); a second rotation member (31) disposed perpendicular to the first rotation axis between the cleaning module (12) and the main body (11) (See FIG. 3), having a second rotation axis (vertical axis) vertically disposed, and configured to rotate the main body (11) about the second rotation axis (vertical axis);
and an anti-rotation assembly (22) having one end coupled to the second rotation member (31) and another end locked by the first rotation member (32) (See paragraph [0034]) with the anti-rotation assembly is configured (22) to restrict the second rotation member (31) from rotating the main body (11) about the second rotation axis (vertical axis) unless a force exceeding a predetermined level is applied to the anti-rotation assembly (22) (See paragraph [0034]).
Regarding claim 2, Boyes discloses that the first rotation axis (axial direction) is disposed at a forward end of the first rotation member (32), and with the first rotation member (32) is hingedly coupled to a rearward end of the cleaning module (12) (See FIGS. 1-3) through the first rotation axis (axial direction).
Regarding claim 14, Boyes discloses that the anti-rotation assembly (22) further includes an elastic member (plastics; See paragraph [0034]) configured to provide a restoration force to an opposite direction, when the second rotation member (31) rotates in one direction (axial direction).
Regarding claim 15, Boyes discloses that the elastic member (plastics; See paragraph [0034]) is wound on the second rotation axis (vertical axis), and with one end thereof is supported by one side of the second rotation member (31), and another end thereof is supported by another side of the second rotation member (31) (See FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 16, Boyes discloses that the elastic member (plastics; See paragraph [0034]) is a spiral spring (See FIG. 3) having an inner side end thereof supported by the first rotation member (32), and an outer side end thereof supported by the second rotation member (31).
Regarding claim 17, Boyes discloses that the elastic member (plastic members (22) in FIG. 3) extends in a longitudinal direction of the second rotation member (31), and a forward end of the elastic member (plastic members (22) in FIG. 3) is supported by the first rotation member (32), and at least one side of a rear part thereof is supported by the second rotation member (31).
Regarding claim 18, Boyes discloses that the second rotation axis (vertical axis) is disposed at a rearer position than the first rotation member (32).
Regarding independent claim 20, Boyes discloses a cleaning module (12) configured to suck in outside air (See paragraph [0027]); a main body (11) configured to provide a suction force to the cleaning module (12); a rotation member (30) disposed between the cleaning module (12) and the main body (11), and configured to rotate the main body (11) about a rotation axis disposed in one direction; and an anti-rotation assembly (22) having one end thereof coupled to the rotation member (30), another end thereof configured to be locked by the cleaning module or the main body (12)
with the anti-rotation assembly is configured (22) to restrict the second rotation member (31) from rotating the main body (11) about the second rotation axis (vertical axis) unless a force exceeding a predetermined level is applied to the anti-rotation assembly (22) (See paragraph [0034]).
Allowable Subject Matter
3. Claims 3-14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 19 is allowed.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed on June 29, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that the U.S. Patent Publication (2011/0113590) to Boyes fails to disclose the anti-rotation assembly is configured (22) to restrict the second rotation member (31) from rotating the main body (11) about the second rotation axis (vertical axis) unless a force exceeding a predetermined level is applied to the anti-rotation since the locking member (22) is not configured to restrict the lower tubular member (31) from rotating the upright portion since Boyes details the grooves and the locking member block axial movement of the upper tubular member (32) apparat from the lower tubular member (31) (See Remarks at page 4). However, the amendment to independent claims 1 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 as noted above, moreover, Boyes teaches that the locking member (22) is constrained by the upper and lower channel grooves, which together the grooves and the locking member block axial movement of the upper tubular member (32) from the lower tubular member (31) (See paragraph [0034]).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Conclusion
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL D. JENNINGS whose telephone number is (571)270-1536. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30pm. EST.
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 S. Carter can be reached at (571) 272-4475. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
MICHAEL DEANGILO. JENNINGS
Examiner
Art Unit 3723
/MICHAEL D JENNINGS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights