DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Acknowledgements
This office action is in response to the application filed 12/22/2023.
Claims 11-30 are pending and have been examined.
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 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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 11-21 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 2013/0305481 A1) in view of Ebrahimi et al. (US 2021/0089040 A1).
Re claim 11, Jung discloses a base (ref. 60, see fig. 1), see fig. comprising:
a housing (ref. 61) having a cleaning region (see fig. 10 region between ref. 61 and ref. 60) for docking a cleaner (ref. 20); and
a dust suction assembly (ref. 62a, 97a-b) arranged outside the cleaning cavity and including:
a dust collection port (ref. 62a, see fig. 5 and 8) configured to be in communication with the cleaner; and
an air return port (ref. 97a-b, see fig. 5 and 8) configured to be in communication with the cleaner;
wherein the dust suction assembly is configured to suck dust from the cleaner through the dust collection port and guide gas to the cleaner through the air return port (¶ [0124]-[0129]).
Jung does not explicitly disclose a cleaning cavity. However, Ebrahimi discloses it is very well-known in the robotic cleaner base station art (abstract, ¶ [0259]) to provide a housing (ref. 501) including a cavity (see fig. 19B region therein for docking) for docking a cleaner (ref. 500).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the housing of Jung to further include a cavity, as suggested by Ebrahimi, in order to provide an enclosed space for the cleaner for aesthetics and protection.
Re claims 12, Jung further discloses wherein the dust suction assembly includes: an intake passage (ref. 96, 94), one end of the intake passage including the dust collection port (ref. 62a); a dust collector (ref. 93) connected to another end of the intake passage to filter (via ref. 93a) the dust introduced from the dust collection port (see fig. 8); and an exhaust passage (refs. 92a, 95, 97), one end of the exhaust passage being connected to the dust collector, another end of the exhaust passage including the air return port (refs. 97a, 97b) (see fig. 8), and the exhaust passage being configured to guide the gas filtered by the dust collector to the cleaner (via refs. 97a, 97b).
Re claims 13-14¸ Jung further discloses wherein the dust collection port is closer to the dust collector than the air return port (see fig. 8).
Re claim 14, Jung further discloses the dust collection port and the air return port are arranged at a left side and a right side (see figs. 5 and 8, at least one on left side and/or right side respectively), the dust collector is arranged at a right end of the cleaning cavity (see fig. 8 right side, it further being simply an obvious rearrangement of parts based on aesthetics or design expediency. See MPEP 2114.04(VI)(C)), and the exhaust passage extends from the rear end of the cleaning cavity to the right end of the cleaning cavity and is connected to the dust collector (see fig. 8 ref. 92a form at rear end connected at right side to dust collector 93). Ebrahimi further discloses wherein a front end of the cleaning cavity is provided with an opening (see fig. 19B opening of ref. 501) and a dust collection port (ref. 503 connecting to ref. 509) at a right-rear end of the cleaning cavity (see fig. 19b) on a right side (see fig. 19b) and a dust collector (ref. 505) position on a right end of the cavity (see fig. 19B). Moreover, the mere repositioning of the dust collector and dust collection port (and similarly the air return port) to corresponding “ends” of the cavity, is prima facie obvious/engineering expedient to one of ordinary skill in the art, based on available space and desired aesthetics, in order to minimize vertical space usage and maximize lateral and horizontal space.
Re claims 15-16, Regarding “wherein the intake passage is located between the cleaning cavity and the dust collector in a left-right direction”, Ebrahimi discloses the positioning (see fig. 19B, from ref. 509 to ref. 504, 506, to 505). Re claim 16, Regarding “wherein a distance between the dust collection port and the air return port in the left-right direction is greater than 0.5 times a dimension of the cleaning cavity in the left-right direction”, the mere change in size of spacing and/or position of the air return port are mere engineering expedients to one of ordinary skill in the art, based on space utilization and aesthetics. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) Changes in Size/Proportion. See also MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) Rearrangement of Parts.
Re claims 17-21, Jung further discloses wherein the dust collector includes: a dust collection box (ref. 93) connected to the another end of the intake passage; and a drive member (ref. 92), one end of the drive member being connected to the dust collection box (at ref. 93a), another end of the drive member being connected to the one end of the exhaust passage (ref. 92a, 95), and the drive member being configured to guide gas flow to flow from the dust collection port to the air return port (see fig. 8).
Re claims 24, Regarding “wherein a length of the intake passage is less than a length of the exhaust passage”, the mere change in size and/or position of the ports, and therefore the connecting intake passage and exhaust passage, are mere engineering expedients to one of ordinary skill in the art, based on space utilization and aesthetics. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) Changes in Size/Proportion. See also MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) Rearrangement of Parts. Moreover, it being expected that a longer run will occur from a right-positioned dust collector back to the left-oriented exhaust passage and return air port.
Claims 25-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 2013/0305481 A1) in view of Ebrahimi et al. (US 2021/0089040 A1), as applied above, and further in view of CN216124370U (cited by Applicant) (machine translation attached).
Re claim 25-26, Jung/Ebrahimi discloses as shown above, but does not disclose further comprising a drying assembly including: a fan arranged at a top end of the cleaning cavity; and a ventilator arranged at a rear end of the cleaning cavity, one end of the ventilator being in communication with the fan, and another end of the ventilator being provided with an air outlet. However, CN216124370U disclose it is well-known in the cleaner base station art (abstract) to provide a drying assembly (ref. 11) including: a fan (ref. 112, see figs. 2-3) arranged at a top end of the cleaning cavity; and a ventilator (ref. 103) arranged at a rear end of the cleaning cavity, one end of the ventilator being in communication with the fan, and another end of the ventilator being provided with an air outlet (ref. 102). Re claim 26, Regarding “wherein the ventilator is arranged between the dust collection port and the air return port in a left-right direction of the base”, CN216124370U teaches the ventilator arranged centrally, and thus expected to be between a right dust collection port and a left air return port, it further being simply an obvious rearrangement of parts. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the base of Jung/Ebrahimi to further include a drying assembly, as suggested by CN216124370U, in order to quickly dry the robotic mop to prevent odor.
Re claims 27-30, Independent claim 27 defines over claim 11 only in the recitation of a laundry treatment apparatus having a body. CN216124370U further disclose the laundry treatment apparatus (ref. 201) having a body and a base (ref. 100) at a lower end of the body (see fig. 4). Re claims 28-30, claims 28-30 recite limitations rejected above and are therefore satisfied by the combination Jung/Ebrahimi/CN216124370U.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22-23 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record does not teach, suggest or motivate wherein the dust collection box includes: a box body having a first cavity, a front end of the first cavity being provided with an opening; a drawer having a second cavity in communication with the dust collection port, the air return port being arranged inside the drawer, and the drawer being arranged in the first cavity and movable in translation along a front-rear direction; and a filter member arranged in the second cavity to filter the gas passing through the second cavity.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN114795028A note rear-positioned dust collection port and air port 203 204.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7299. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am to 6:30pm.
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, Michael Barr can be reached on 571-272-1414. 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.
KEVIN G. LEE
Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/KEVIN G LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 1711