ETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claims 8-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 11 August 2026. Applicant's election with traverse of Invention Group I (restricting out Group 2, to the method of controlling) and species A.i., B.i. and C.i. (from groups A-C) is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the special technical feature cited by the examiner in the original restriction/election requirement is not (no longer) the special feature, now citing the new limitation to the dust bin longitudinal directional orientation. This is not found persuasive because the previous restriction was proper, and still is proper regarding the different inventions, wherein the new limitations are also not found to define a contribution over the prior art (as discussed in the rejections below).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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, 3, 5 and 6 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 claim 1:
The limitation “the dust collecting motor operates when the cleaner is coupled” is unclear because it does not define if there is any physical structure to perform the function of operating/activating the motor, or if the limitation is merely an intended use of the device.
The new limitation “a longitudinal direction of the dust bin intersects an imaginary suction flow path through line extending through the suction flow path in a longitudinal direction of the suction flow path” is unclear because “an imaginary suction flow path… extending through the flow path in a longitudinal direction of the suction flow path” relies on an imaginary line, which is only vaguely disclosed as extending through the suction flow path (which is defined in line 2 of claim 1 to be defined by the cleaner). However, the “suction flow path” defined by the applicant’s current elected invention for the cleaner (best seen in Fig. 7) includes air flowing through several different components (212, 213, 220, 250, 260), in different directions for most components. Due to the plural different components and air flow, the claim is further unclear because the claim does not clarify which longitudinal portion of the suction flow path (i.e. the longitudinal axis of the chamber 220 is perpendicular to the flow path through the longitudinal axis of inlet 212).
Regarding claim 3, the limitation of claim 3 is unclear because it appears to link the operation of the motor with the position of the suction port blocking part, due to the phrasing” when the dust collection motor operates”. However, the claims do not clarify if there is actual structure that will link the claimed functions, or if the limitation is merely a statement of an optional intended use for the claimed invention. As best understood by the examiner, the limitation is considered to be intended to define some structure that is capable of performing the two claimed functions simultaneously, and will be treated as such for the sake of the current Office Action.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, similar to claim 3, claims 5 and 6 relate function(s) of the claimed apparatus, with other functions, but there is not understood to be clear disclosure in the claims of how the function are actually related. Therefore, again is unclear of the limitations are merely statements of intended use.
Additionally regarding claim 6:
It is unclear what the opening/closing door is intended to be when the shutter is previously claimed and understood to open or close the opening. As best understood by the examiner, the limitation is considered to be intended to define that the shutter is formed as an opening/closing door, and will be treated as such for the sake of the current Office Action.
it is unclear how the opening/closing door is intended to “provide driving power for moving the shutter” because a door typically does not power or move other components, and there is no disclosure to support that the door provides power. As best understood by the examiner, the limitation is considered to be intended to define that the door/shutter is provided driving power (from either an external source, or some form of internal actuator), and will be treated as such for the sake of the current Office Action.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beuning et al. (2020/0281428; to be referred to hereinafter as D1) in view of Lindner et al. (2023/0065131; to be referred to hereinafter as D2) and Reindle et al. (7,237,298; to be referred to hereinafter as D3).
D1 discloses a cleaner system including: a cleaner (3) comprising a suction part (at brush 20) having a suction flow path (22) through which air flows, a dust separating part (filter chamber 2) configured to separate dust from the air, a main body having a suction motor (18) configured to generate a suction force for sucking the air along the suction part, and a dust bin (also filter chamber 2, understood in the art to include filter means and a collection container) configured to store the dust separated by the dust separating part; and a cleaner station (1) comprising a coupling part (4) including a dust bin guide surface to which an outer peripheral surface of the dust bin is coupled, a dust collecting part (5) configured to capture dust in the dust bin, a dust collecting motor (7) configured to generate a suction force for sucking the dust in the dust bin to the dust collecting part, and a housing having the dust collecting part and the dust collecting motor therein, wherein the cleaner further comprises: a prefilter (as noted above, the “filter chamber” of D1 would be understood to anyone of ordinary skill in the art to include filter means and a collection container and the examiner hereby takes official notice that the filter chamber of D1 would almost universally include a filter and collection chamber, with any filter in or extending from the chamber would read on the claimed prefilter) disposed in a flow path configured to connect the dust separating part and the suction motor, the prefilter being configured to filter out foreign substances contained in the air, and a differential pressure sensor (detection device 9, which comprises two pressure sensors; paragraph 43) configured to detect a differential pressure between air before passing through the prefilter (in flow path 22) and air after passing through the prefilter (second pressure sensor is correspondingly arranged downstream of filter chamber 2) , wherein the dust collecting motor operates when the cleaner is coupled to the cleaner station (the collection of debris from the robot would require activation of the motor when the robot is coupled to the station, either
PNG
media_image1.png
192
462
media_image1.png
Greyscale
manually or via some form of electronic controls) and wherein a longitudinal direction of the dust bin (shown by line A) intersects an imaginary suction flow path through line through the suction flow path in a longitudinal direction of the suction flow path (either B or C may define the suction flow path through line, each shown in line with the longitudinal direction of different portions of the suction flow path).
However, D1 fails to disclose that the dust collecting part is disposed below the coupling part or that the motor is disposed below the dust collecting part or that the motor is operated/maintained in operation. D2 discloses a similar cleaner and cleaner station, for emptying the cleaner, and teaches that the station may include additional air flow passages to collect debris from other cleaners, such as a manually operated upright cleaner, wherein the orientation of the dust collection part, coupling part and motor are configured as claimed, with the dust collecting part (50H) is disposed below the coupling part (50F) and the motor (50K) is disposed below the dust collecting part. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the cleaner station of D1 with similar air flow paths and/or configuration for the base unit to adapt to evacuation of upright cleaners either in addition to, or instead of, the robotic cleaner, as taught by D2, having the dust collecting part disposed below the coupling part or that the motor is disposed below the dust collecting part.
Additionally, while D1 does disclose selection of differential pressure and control and evaluation of the detected pressure values, D1 does not specifically address any control process for the suction motor in response to the detected pressure values. D3 also discloses a suction cleaner having differential pressure sensors along the air flow path, and teaches that the differential pressure may indicate a blockage or full collection container when below a predetermined threshold, and teaches that the suction motor may be stopped if/when the detected level is less than the threshold, possibly indicating an obstruction in the airflow path (Co. 14, lines 33-50 and Col. 17, lines 6-22; Fig. 14). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made for the controller of D1 to evaluate the detected differential pressure and to maintain operation of dust collection motor when the cleaner is coupled tot eh cleaner station and the differential pressure is equal to or higher than the preset differential pressure (effectively indicating proper/sufficient operating air flow).
Claims 2, 3, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beuning et al. (2020/0281428; to be referred to hereinafter as D1) in view of Lindner et al. (2023/0065131; to be referred to hereinafter as D2) and Reindle et al. (7,237,298; to be referred to hereinafter as D3) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Jung et al. (KR 10-2012-0007943).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of D1-D3 fails to disclose a suction port blocking part. However, Jung discloses another similar cleaner and cleaner station, for emptying the cleaner, and teaches that the station includes an opening (62a) to collect debris from the inlet of the cleaner (a known alternative to the configuration taught by D1 or D2), and may include a suction port cover (64), which is aligned with the suction port of the cleaner when coupled to the cleaner station, and may be opened or closed to provide a bridge for the wheels of the cleaner during docking/undocking movement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, when using an alternate collection configuration to remove debris from the inlet of the cleaner, as taught by Jung and known in the art as an alternative configuration, to provide a similar cover to optionally cover the intake port of the station and the inlet of the cleaner, to function as a bridge for the cleaner. Further, Jung teaches that the cover may be automatically opened or closed dependent on the relative position of the cleaner (docked vs. undocked) or may be opened and closed using a separate device (first full paragraph of Pg. 7 in the English translation of KR 10-2012-00007943) such that the cover would obviously be capable of optionally closing (both the station inlet port and the port of the cleaner), while the cleaner is coupled to the station.
Regarding claim 3, as noted above (under 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections), it is unclear if the suction port blocking part is actually somehow linked in operation to the dust collection motor, but would have been obvious for the blocking part to optionally be closed while the dust collection motor operates, particularly when the cover is operable using a separate device, as discussed for claim 2. Additionally/alternatively, when modified to optionally evacuate an upright cleaner or robotic cleaner, as taught by D2 for claim 1, it also would have been obvious that the cover may also be closed, effectively closing the suction port, when the robot cleaner is docked, but the upright cleaner is being evacuated, which will reduce/eliminate suction loss through the robot cleaner evacuating portion of the station.
Regarding claim 5, Jung further discloses that the suction port blocking part comprises a blocking part main body (portion of base surrounding and supporting cover 64) coupled to the housing and disposed at a position that faces a cleaner nozzle of the cleaner; and a shutter (64) provided on the blocking part main body and configured to rectilinearly reciprocate (as shown by arrows in Fig. 5B), and wherein the shutter is obviously capable of moving in a state in which the dust collecting motor operates due to the shutter being open or closed “using a separate device” as taught by Jung.
Regarding claim 6, Jung further discloses that the suction port blocking part comprises a suction port opening/closing door (considered to be the same as shutter 64; see rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 above) configured to receive driving power for moving the shutter (either external force, such as a “separate device” as taught by Jung, or some form of internal actuator), and wherein the suction port opening/closing door would obviously be capable of operating (either moves the shutter or holds the shutter in the closed position) in a state in which the dust collecting motor operates (due to the shutter operating using a separate device, and there being no structure linking the above functions in the current claims).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beuning et al. (2020/0281428; to be referred to hereinafter as D1) in view of Lindner et al. (2023/0065131; to be referred to hereinafter as D2) and Reindle et al. (7,237,298; to be referred to hereinafter as D3) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Hawkins et al. (2002/0029436).
D1 only discloses one pair of sensors to detect differential pressure along the flow path between the separating part and the prefilter, which will detect fullness or blockage of the air flow between the intake and the filter, but fails to disclose additional sensors. Hawkins discloses a similar cleaner, also detecting status of the cleaner based on differential pressure sensors, and teaches that the status of a HEPA filter (paragraph 23), which will require sensors on opposing sides of the filter to detect differential pressure across the filter and indicate the status of the filter. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide additional pressure sensor(s) to the cleaner of D1, to detect the status of the filter, as taught by Hawkins, which will effectively provide a second differential pressure sensor disposed in a flow path configured to connect the prefilter and the suction motor to allow for detection of the fill level or blockages between the inlet and collector, as well as detect the status of the filter(s).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beuning et al. (2020/0281428; to be referred to hereinafter as D1) in view of Lindner et al. (2023/0065131; to be referred to hereinafter as D2), Reindle et al. (7,237,298; to be referred to hereinafter as D3) and Jung et al. (KR 10-2012-0007943) as applied to claims 2 and 5, and further in view of (Gao CN 112006615).
The combination of D1-D3 and Jung teaches the shutter as discussed supra, but fails to disclose any specific material or properties for the shutter. Gao discloses another cleaner and station, with station including shutters to open/close suction ports as needed (best seen in Fig. 26), and teaches that the opening/closing structure may be provided as a soft structure, such as silica gel/rubber, that may deform under suction force to open the port as needed (first paragraph on page 16 of English language translation of Gao), thus eliminating the need for a separate actuator. Therefore, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optionally configure the shutter taught by Jung from a similar silica gel/rubber material, to enable automatic opening/closing as needed due to suction force, wherein the “soft silica gel/rubber” will be understood to have elasticity to be capable of functioning as disclosed by Gao.
Conclusion
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 14 October 2026
Prosecution Insights