DETAILED ACTION
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, support on a side of the channel outlet (claims 1 and 14), the magnetic member and magnetically attracted member (optional limitation in claims 5, 11 and 18; while the replacement drawing Fig. 6 now shows magnetic members, they are not shown in a manner to support the claim limitation that that the magnetic members function as limiting and positioning portions, respectively; i.e. the drawing only shows schematic of magnetic members, but does not show them incorporated as claimed in the current invention) and the slot passing through a bottom of the mounting groove (claim 9; shown passing through a middle portion of the mounting groove) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, 7-14 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claims 1, 5 and 7-14, each of the limitations “recycling bin waste collection bin” (preambles of claims 1, 5 and 7-13, and lines 3 and 4 of claim 14), is assumed to have intended to delete “recycling bin” to correspond to the amendments to the specification.
Additionally regarding claims 1 and 14, the limitation “on a side of the cover body toward the channel outlet” is somewhat unclear, because the “toward the channel outlet” suggests either an orientation of the side or possible movement in an attempt to define structure. It is suggested that the applicant clarify the limitation to “on a side of the cover body facing [or adjacent to] the channel outlet”.
Regarding claim 19, the terms “a bottom plate” and “a side plate” are both previously introduced in amended claim 14, and should be changed to “the bottom plate” and “the side plate”.
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, 9 and 14 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 14, the limitation “on a side of the channel outlet close to the outer shell” is considered to be unclear because it first suggests that the support is on the channel outlet, and second, the term “close to” is a vague term, wherein any component of the claimed invention may be considered to be “close” to one another due to the relatively small size. As best understood by the examiner, the limitation is intended to disclose that the support (disclosed as “113” in the specification and previously claimed as being on a side of the cover body) is located spaced from [[on]] a side of the sewage channel and spaced from the outer shell (as supported in the drawings), and will be treated as such for the sake of the current Office Action.
Regarding claim 9:
As previously discussed, the slot (defined as “116” in the specification) is not shown to be “passing through a bottom of the mounting groove” (groove understood the be the recess formed within wall 115 to accommodate the hook 124). Both the slot and the groove are defined as a lack of physical structure (effectively formed as voids in walls), such that it is unclear how one lack of structure may pass through another lack of structure. Further, the portion of the groove that is understood to be the bottom (where the hook would enter) is spaced from the slot, as shown in Fig. 4. As best understood by the examiner, the limitation is considered to be intended to define that the “slot passing through an exterior wall of the mounting portion to intersect with
Similar to claims 1 and 14, claim 9 also recites the bottom wall of the mounting portion and a side of the hook as “close to” the bottom plate, wherein the term “close to” is vague. To further confuse the scope of the claims, both the bottom wall of the mounting portion and the hook as a whole are clearly spaced from the bottom wall (claimed as the bottom wall of the filter, which is disclosed as “122” in the specification). As best understood by the examiner, the limitation is considered to be intended to define “a bottom wall facing the bottom plate; and the connecting portion further comprises an abutting portion located on a bottom side of the hook and facing away from the bottom plate”, and will be treated as such for the sake of the current Office Action.
Claim limitations “limiting portion” and “positioning portion” have been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the specification provides a few possible examples of structure for each term, but also discloses that the terms “may have any other structure that meets the requirements” (paragraph 59; assumed to “meet the requirements” of releasably joining two parts). The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant suggests that Xu does not read on the claimed invention, as amended, and provides several arguments that call out improper relative structure and/or argue that Xu does not read on structure or functions that are not actually claimed. For instance, on Pg. 18 of the Remarks, applicant repeatedly refers to part “40” of Xu as the filter assembly, part “20” as an “access shell” and part “30 “ as the filter cartridge. However, as applied in the rejections (in the previous Office Action, and below) the examiner relies on part “40” as the upper cover, and parts “20” and “30” together as the filtering portion, with the “filter cartridge” 30 clearly corresponding to the filtering portion (120) of the current invention. Additionally, the applicant makes arguments, such as the claimed support extends into the inside of the bin, which is not claimed. The examiner maintains that the support (lip 46 of Xu” does extend in the direction as claimed, and is also detachably connected to the filtering portion (20/30). Similarly, the side plate (side wall of filter cartridge 30) is detachable from the support (46) of the upper cover (40). On page 20, the applicant argues that the shell 20 and filter cartridge 30 of Xu are separate and independent parts, whereas the “filtering portion” as claimed is a single, integrated component. However, as discussed supra, components 20 and 30 of Xu are together considered as the filtering portion, Xu does not disclose anywhere that the filter cartridge (30) and shell (20) are separate and neither the claims, nor the application as a whole require or disclose the filtering portion to be a single integrated component. Additional arguments that improperly address components of the prior art and/or argue that the prior art does not meet unclaimed structure will not be addressed, as the examiner has made clear in the rejections how the prior art reads on the claims, as currently amended.
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, 5, 8, 10-14 and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (CN 112568834 B) in view of Scholten et al. (2021/0267428).
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Xu discloses a cleaning device and “recycling bin” comprising the device body (not shown but disclosed as a cleaning device for use with the recycling bin, which inherently includes some form of body, to be a physical structure), the bin comprising: an upper cover (40); a filtering portion (20/30), detachably connected to the upper cover and provided with a plurality of filtering holes, wherein a filtering space is formed between the filtering portion and the upper cover; and a sewage channel (11), passing through the filtering portion and comprising a channel outlet disposed within the filtering space. However, Xu fails to disclose that the channel outlet is located above the filtering portion. Scholten discloses a similar cleaning device, also having a filtering portion (1150) wherein a filtering space is formed between the filtering portion and the upper cover (982), with a sewage channel (923), passing through the filtering portion and comprising a channel outlet (927) disposed within the filtering space substantially above the filtering portion, wherein the solid debris collected in the filtering space will be separated from the collected liquid when the cover and filtering portion are removed from the bin. The space between the filtering portion and the cover of Scholten is substantially larger than the equivalent space for Xu, which will allow for substantially larger capacity for solid debris that is collected by the filtering portion. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optionally lower the position of the filtering portion of Xu along the sewage channel (most easily by extending the side of the filter 30, such that the bottom plate of the filter is closer to the bottom of the bin body), as taught by Scholten, to increase collection volume for solid debris, while maintaining the same function as the filtering portion of Xu.
Regarding the limitations previously examined as claims 2 and 15, which are now included in claims 1 and 14, respectively, Xu further discloses a bin body (10), comprising an outer shell and an inner shell (11) enclosed to form an accommodation cavity, wherein the outer shell is detachably connected to the upper cover, the inner shell is provided with the sewage channel, and the filtering portion is within the accommodation cavity; wherein the channel outlet (upper end of 11) is communicated with the accommodation cavity, and the sewage channel further comprises a channel inlet (lower end of 11) outside the accommodation cavity.
Regarding the limitations previously examined as claims 3 and 16, which are now included in claims 1 and 14, respectively, Xu further discloses that the upper cover comprises: a cover body (40) detachably connected to the outer shell, wherein the cover body is provided with a suction port (401), the suction port is communicated with the accommodation cavity, the suction port is configured for collection of a substance, from a surface to be cleaned, under the action of suction through the channel inlet to the channel outlet and then to flow through the filtering portion.
Regarding the limitations previously examined as claims 4 and 17, which are now included in claims 1 and 14, respectively, Xu further discloses that the upper cover further comprises: a support (lower lip having seal thereon), provided on a side of the cover body facing the channel outlet and located spaced from a side of the sewage channel and spaced from the outer shell (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112b above), wherein the support is detachably connected to the filtering portion (via latch upper end of shell 20 and latch 22/46).
Regarding the limitations previously introduced in claims 7 and 19, which are now included in claims 1 and 14, respectively, Xu further discloses that the filtering portion comprises a bottom plate and a side plate (as seen in Figs. 3 and 4), and the side plate is detachably connected to the support of the upper cover (40) via portion (20) that is considered to be part of the filtering portion.
Regarding claim 5 and 18, Xu further discloses that the upper cover (40) is provided with a limiting portion (46), and the filtering portion is provided with a positioning portion (22) configured to fit the limiting portion, and contact or separation between the limiting portion and the positioning portion is configured to connect the filtering portion and the upper cover or to separate the filtering portion from the upper cover, wherein the limiting portion comprises a hook, and the positioning portion comprises a slot (protrusion 22 effectively forms a slot on the bottom thereof, for the hook to engage when locked).
Regarding claims 7 and 19, Xu further discloses that the bottom plate is provided with a mounting hole (shown in Fig. 3 with the sewage channel passing therethrough), wherein the sewage channel passes through the mounting hole; and the side plate (vertical portion of filtering portion) is connected to the bottom plate; wherein the channel outlet is located above the side plate (as taught by Scholten, as discussed above for claims 1 and 14) and such relative orientation exists when respective components are assembled together. However, Xu fails to disclose that the filtering holes are at least provided on the bottom plate. Scholten also discloses that the filter portion includes a mounting hole (1160), wherein the sewage channel passes through the mounting hole; and a side plate (1154) connected to the bottom plate, and Scholten also teaches that the filtering holes 91156) in the filtering portion are provided in the bottom plate, which would be understood to anyone of ordinary skill in the art to ensure that all liquids entering the filter portion are allowed to pass through the filtering portion to be collected in the bin and separated from the solids in the filtering portion. Therefore, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide at least some if the filtering holes in the bottom plate of Xu, as taught by Scholten, to ensure that all liquid can drain from the filtering portion (whereas a lack of holes in the bottom plate of Xu would likely retain at least some liquid, thus failing to fully separate the solids from liquids).
Regarding claims 8 and 20, Xu further discloses that the side plate protrudes in a direction away from the bottom plate to provide a connecting portion (22, connected to the side plate via the access shell 20), and the connecting portion comprises a hook (22 protrudes from the shell 20 to effectively form a hook); and the upper cover protrudes in a direction toward the bottom plate to provide a mounting portion (lower rim of cover 40, including latch 46) configured to mount the connecting portion.
Regarding claim 10, Xu further discloses that the filtering holes are further provided on the side plate.
Regarding claim 11, Xu further discloses that one of the upper cover (40) and the filtering portion (20/30) is provided with a limiting portion, and the other one of the upper cover and the filtering portion is provided with a positioning portion configured to fit the limiting portion, and contact or separation between the limiting portion and the positioning portion is configured to connect the filtering portion and the upper cover or to separate the filtering portion from the upper cover, wherein the limiting portion is a hook (46), and the positioning portion is a slot (22 effectively forms a slot on the bottom thereof, for the hook to engage when locked), wherein positioning portion (22) is provided on the side plate (via shell 20), and is detachably connected with the support of the upper cover.
Regarding claim 12, Xu further discloses a liquid level detection device (float 52) provided on the bin body and configured to detect a liquid level in the accommodation cavity.
Regarding claim 13, Xu further discloses that the cleaner includes a controller that receives signals from the liquid level detection device (pg. 7 of English language translation) and may initiate an alert signal in response to a detection result from the liquid level detection device being that a level of a liquid substance in the bin body reaches a preset height. However, Xu fails to discloses that the controller will also control a suction fan to stop working. Scholten also discloses a liquid level detection device for the collection bin of the cleaner, and teaches that detection of liquid reaching a preset height, the controller may also shut down electronic components, including the suction source, to prevent damage thereto, if/when the liquid were to reach the components (paragraph 109). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to also configure the controller of Xu to shut down electronic components, including the suction fan, when the liquid level detection device indicates that the liquid has reached the preset height, as taught by Scholten, to prevent damage thereto, if/when the liquid were to reach the components.
Regarding claims 21 and 22, The combination of Xu and Scholten, as discussed above, provides all of the claimed structure set forth in the claims, effectively incorporating limitations from independent claims 1 and 14, as well as claims 7 and 8, which have all been addressed above.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (CN 112568834 B) in view of Scholten et al. (2021/0267428) as applied to claims 1, 7 and 8, and further in view of JP S603422 Y2 (to be referred to hereinafter as JP422).
Regarding claim 9, Xu further discloses that the mounting portion further comprises a a bottom wall (lower edge of cover 40) facing the bottom plate; and the connecting portion further comprises an abutting portion located on a bottom side of the hook and facing (upwardly) away from the bottom plate bottom, wherein the abutting portion is configured to contact the bottom wall so as to position the hook in the slot. However, Xu fails to disclose that the mounting portion comprises a mounting groove, and the upper cover is provided with a slot passing through a bottom of the mounting groove. While Xu shows a common latch (22/46) known in the art, it also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that other types of latches may be provided to connect the cover to the filtering portion. One very common latch is a resilient hook, formed as a unitary part with one of the components being connected, and being flexible into and out of a corresponding slot in the other component being connected, similar to the latch mechanism disclosed by JP422, which is also provided for connecting a lid (23) to a filtering component (3/21), similar to Xu, the connection defining a mounting portion (cross section of 23 as shown in Fig. 4) comprises a mounting groove (for receiving latch portion 3 as shown in Fig. 4), and the upper cover is provided with a slot (portion receiving protrusion 22 in Fig. 4) passing through a bottom of the mounting groove (bottom being a relative term, wherein if/when the mounting structure of Fig. 4 is inverted, the slot will be considered to pass through the bottom of the mounting groove). Therefore, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide an alternative latching mechanism of JP422 in place of the latch taught by Xu, being well known alternatives in the art, and also being simpler than the multi-part latch of Xu, due to formation of the latching parts integrally with the respective components being connected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Each of Luyckx et al. (10,512,383), Li et al. (12,171,394), Kasper et al. (2007/0067945) and Pedlar et al. (2009/0094784) disclose cleaners having similar filtering portions within the collection tanks.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN R MULLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4489. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Keller can be reached at 571-272-8548. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRYAN R MULLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723 9 September 2026
Prosecution Insights