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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “fixing hook” (Claim 14, please see also 112(b) below) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because:
i. In Fig. 8, the part designated 20 (identified as suction motor in specification) is illustrated as the same material as the part designated 73 (identified as HEPA filter in specification), where both are illustrated as refractory material (MPEP 608.02 IX, example below). This does not appear accurate given the functioning of a motor and of a filter.
PNG
media_image1.png
122
186
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim 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:
i. “a fixing part fixed to the compression lever housing” in Claim 4, interpreted as 6261 with 6261a and 6261b, specification p. 24-25
ii. “a deformation part supported by the fixing part, configured to seal the slit, and having at least one portion thereof configured to be deformed to form a gap” in Claim 4, interpreted as 6262, specification p. 24
iii. “a suction unit disposed in the dustbin, and configured to guide air to the dustbin” in Claim 16, interpreted as 10, specification p. 8
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “close” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close” 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. “close contact” is indefinite as a result. Claims 17 and 19 also have this issue.
Claim 7 recites in part “wherein the sealer is provided in plurality, and the plurality of sealers are arranged on left and right sides, respectively, about the slit”. This is indefinite. The language is non-idiomatic. There may be a 112(d) issue as there is one sealer established in Claim 1 and Claim 7 may be attempting to redefine this previously established one part into multiple parts. Claim 19 has the same issue.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the main body" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the compression lever" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1, from which Claim 11 depends, establishes “a compression lever housing”.
Claim 11 recites “wherein the shield plate comprises: an upper shield plate having an upper end connected to the compression lever to ascend along with the compression lever; and a lower shield plate disposed below the upper shield plate, and having at least a portion thereof configured to overlap the upper shield plate in forward and rearward directions” (emphasis examiner’s). This is indefinite. Applicant appears to be claiming two parts, as evidenced by the claimed relationship emphasized above and applicant’s specification and drawings identifying upper shield plate 627a and lower shield plate 627b (ex. Figs. 17-18). The ”shield plate” is introduced in Claim 10 as one part. Claim 11 appears to be attempting to redefine this one part into multiple parts which may raise a 112(d) issue.
Claim 12 recites “a mounting protrusion of the compression lever housing protruding outward from an outer circumferential surface of the dustbin, but protruding in an opposite direction to a radial direction of the dustbin”. This is indefinite. The specification at p. 18 uses similar language to Claim 12:
Referring to FIG. 12, the mounting protrusion 612 of the compression lever protrudes in a direction opposite to the radial direction of the dustbin 60. In other words, the mounting protrusion 612 of the compression lever housing may not protrude vertically from the outer circumferential surface of the dustbin 60, but may protrude in an outward inclined direction therefrom.
Fig. 12 appears to show the lever protruding in the radial direction (supporting the claimed “protruding outward from an outer circumferential surface of the dustbin”), not “opposite”:
PNG
media_image2.png
444
655
media_image2.png
Greyscale
To protrude in the “opposite direction” would then appear to be protruding inward, which also does not seem to make sense. The metes and bounds of “but protruding in an opposite direction to a radial direction of the dustbin” are indefinite.
Claim 14 recites “a fixing protrusion of the dustbin formed in the dustbin; and a dustbin detachable lever disposed in the main body, and configured to be caught by the fixing protrusion of the dustbin to fix the dustbin and to release the fixation of a fixing hook of the dustbin when the dustbin detachable lever is operated.” This is indefinite. “the fixation of a fixing hook of the dustbin” lacks antecedent basis. “a dustbin detachable lever disposed in the main body, and configured to be caught by the fixing protrusion of the dustbin to fix the dustbin” does not identify what the “fix the dustbin” is in reference to. “a fixing protrusion of the dustbin formed in the dustbin” is not understood as the specification identifies dustbin fixing protrusion 613a but this is formed on the exterior surface of the dustbin (ex. Fig. 10a) instead of claimed “in” the dustbin. The locations and operations of the “fixing hook” and the “fixing protrusion” are not understood. The metes and bounds of the claimed invention are indefinite.
Those claims not specifically mentioned above are rejected as being rendered indefinite by virtue of their dependence on an indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 7-13, 15-19, as far as they are definite and understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 20200383538).
Regarding Claim 1,
A cleaner, comprising:
a dustbin (with 112) having a slit (ex. [0223-0225, 0238, 0253, 0260, 0273], Figs. 8-11) formed on one side thereof;
a compression lever housing (with 720, 710) disposed on an outside of the slit and mounted to the dustbin;
a compression plate (with 750) disposed on an inside of the dustbin and configured to ascend in a direction in which the slit extends; and
a sealer (311, 312 - Fig. 8; 321, 322 - Fig. 9; 331, 333 - Fig. 10; 341, 342 - Fig. 11) disposed in the compression lever housing, coming in close contact with the slit, and extending along the slit.
Regarding Claim 2,
The cleaner of claim 1, further comprising:
a compression rail (with 790) disposed on an inside of the compression lever housing, and extending along the slit; and
a compression guide (with 720, 730, 767) having one side coupled to the compression plate and another side coupled to the compression lever, and configured to ascend along the compression rail.
Regarding Claim 3,
The cleaner of claim 1, further comprising:
a compression guide having at least a portion thereof inserted into an inside of the dustbin through the slit, one side of the portion inserted thereinto being coupled to the compression plate, and another side not inserted thereto being inserted into the compression lever to ascend along the slit of the dustbin (Figs. 1-4, 6-11, [0197-0201, 0240-0285]).
Regarding Claim 7,
The cleaner of claim 1, wherein the sealer is provided in plurality, and the plurality of sealers are arranged on left and right sides, respectively, about the slit (311, 312 - Fig. 8; 321, 322 - Fig. 9; 331, 333 - Fig. 10; 341, 342 - Fig. 11).
Examiner note: The claim language is indefinite. As the cited parts of the prior art are in pairs, these are applied as the instant invention’s “sealer” are likewise in pairs (626a, 626b).
Regarding Claim 8,
The cleaner of claim 1,
wherein the dustbin is formed in a cylindrical shape (ex. Figs. 8-11), and
wherein the slit is formed in a direction parallel to a center axis of the dustbin (Figs. 8-11).
Regarding Claim 9,
The cleaner of claim 1, wherein, when viewed from a top, an angle formed between the slit of the dustbin and an imaginary line passing through a center of the dustbin and a center axis of the main body is an acute angle (Figs. 1-4, example annotation below).
Examiner note: As best understood, this is the angle applicant is referencing:
PNG
media_image3.png
980
662
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 10,
The cleaner of claim 1,
wherein, in the compression lever housing, a slit (with 642, Fig. 3) parallel to the slit of the dustbin is formed, and
wherein the compression lever housing further comprises a shield plate (with 712) configured to cover at least a portion of the slit of the compression lever housing.
Regarding Claim 11,
The cleaner of claim 10,
wherein the shield plate comprises:
an upper shield plate (example annotation below) having an upper end connected to the compression lever (with 714 of 710) to ascend along with the compression lever; and
a lower shield plate (example annotation below) disposed below the upper shield plate, and having at least a portion thereof configured to overlap the upper shield plate in forward and rearward directions.
Examiner note: Since “portion” is broad, the annotated drawing shows an example slanted demarcation between the “lower” and “upper” shield plate, such that the parts overlap as claimed.
PNG
media_image4.png
684
618
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
520
202
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 12,
The cleaner of claim 1, comprising:
a mounting protrusion of the compression lever housing protruding outward from an outer circumferential surface of the dustbin, but protruding in an opposite direction to a radial direction of the dustbin (Figs. 1-4); and
a mounting groove of the compression lever housing formed on one side of the compression lever housing, and allowing the mounting protrusion of the compression lever housing to be inserted thereinto (Figs. 1-4).
Regarding Claim 13,
The cleaner of claim 1, further comprising:
a main body housing (with 12, 3) allowing the dustbin to be mounted thereto,
wherein one side of the main body housing is inserted into an opening formed on one side of the dustbin to hold the dustbin (example at back, Figs. 1-5), and
wherein another side of the main body housing is caught by another side of the dustbin to hold the dustbin (example at front, Figs. 1-5).
PNG
media_image6.png
888
714
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 15,
The cleaner of claim 1, comprising:
a main body housing (with 3, 12) allowing the dustbin to be mounted thereto; and
a handle (with 30) disposed in the main body housing,
wherein, when viewed from one side, an imaginary line extending in a direction in which the compression lever ascends intersects a longitudinal axis of the handle.
Examiner note: When viewed from the left or right sides of the cleaner as shown in Fig. 1, the annotated lines of the two parts (handle and compression lever) would intersect as shown in the example annotation.
PNG
media_image7.png
1131
574
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 16,
The cleaner of claim 1, comprising:
a suction unit (with 5, ex. Figs. 1-5, [0061]) disposed in the dustbin, and configured to guide air to the dustbin, and
wherein, when viewed from one side, an imaginary line extending in a direction in which the compression lever ascends intersects a longitudinal axis of the suction unit.
Examiner note: When viewed from the left or right sides of Fig. 1, the annotated lines of the two parts (compression lever and suction unit) would intersect as shown in the example annotation.
PNG
media_image8.png
1018
728
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 17,
A cleaner, comprising:
a dustbin (with 112) having a slit (ex. [0223-0225, 0238, 0253, 0260, 0273], Figs. 8-11) formed on one side thereof;
a compression lever housing (with 720, 710) disposed on an outside of the slit and mounted to the dustbin;
a compression plate disposed on an inside of the dustbin and configured to ascend in a direction in which the slit extends; and
a compression guide (with 720, 730, 767) having at least a portion thereof inserted into an inside of the dustbin through the slit, an inside thereof coupled to the compression plate and an outside thereof coupled to the compression lever to move along the slit; and
a sealer (311, 312 - Fig. 8; 321, 322 - Fig. 9; 331, 333 - Fig. 10; 341, 342 - Fig. 11) having a forward surface coming in close contact with the slit, and a side surface coming in close contact with the compression guide.
Regarding Claim 18,
The cleaner of claim 17, comprising:
a compression rail (with 790)fixed to an inside of the compression lever housing, disposed on an outside of the sealer, and extending along the slit to guide the compression guide.
Regarding Claim 19,
The cleaner of claim 17,
wherein the sealer (311, 312 - Fig. 8; 321, 322 - Fig. 9; 331, 333 - Fig. 10; 341, 342 - Fig. 11) is provided in plurality, and
wherein a left sealer comes in close contact with a left side end of the compression guide, and a right sealer comes in close contact with a right side end of the compression guide.
Examiner note: The claim language is indefinite. As the cited parts of the prior art are in pairs, these are applied as the instant invention’s “sealer” are likewise in pairs (626a, 626b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 14, as far as it is definite and understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Hwang et al. (KR 20180023272, machine translation accompanies this office action).
Regarding Claim 14,
The cleaner of claim 1, comprising:
a main body housing (with 3, 12) allowing the dustbin to be mounted thereto.
a fixing protrusion of the dustbin formed in the dustbin (examples below); and
PNG
media_image6.png
888
714
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Lee does not teach
a dustbin detachable lever disposed in the main body, and configured to be caught by the fixing protrusion of the dustbin to fix the dustbin and to release the fixation of a fixing hook of the dustbin when the dustbin detachable lever is operated.
Hwang teaches
For a cleaner,
a main body housing (with 12, 3, Figs. 1-11, ex. p. 6-10 of translation) allowing the dustbin to be mounted thereto,
a fixing protrusion (129) of the dustbin formed in the dustbin (120);
a dustbin detachable lever (with 830, 835, 833, 834) disposed in the main body, and configured to be caught by the fixing protrusion of the dustbin to fix the dustbin and to release the fixation of a fixing hook of the dustbin when the dustbin detachable lever is operated.
“When the dust container 120 is separated from the main body 2, the filter member 140 surrounding the second cyclone part 130 can be exposed to the outside, It can be cleaned.” (p. 10 of translation).
Since both references are directed to cleaners, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cleaner of Lee to instead use a fixing protrusion and lever as taught by Hwang in order to be able to separate the dustbin from the main body so that “the filter member 140 surrounding the second cyclone part 130 can be exposed to the outside, It can be cleaned.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 would appear to 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL QUANDT whose telephone number is (571)272-1247. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, NATHANIEL WIEHE can be reached at (571)272-8648. 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 QUANDT
Examiner
Art Unit 3745
/MICHAEL QUANDT/ Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights