DETAILED ACTION
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
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: connection assembly in claim 15, disclosed as element 1, and equivalents therefor.
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 4, 10-11, 13 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the robot cleaner coupling part". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 10-11 recite the limitation "the support frame". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the connection wall". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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(s) 1-6, 8-9, 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beck DE 102019002827 A1 in view of Keiler US 2019/0357747 A1.
Re claim 1, Beck discloses a connection assembly for a cleaner system [figs. 1-3], comprising:
a station coupling part 60 that supports and is coupled to a lower side of a cleaner station 50 that suctions and collects dust inside a dust container 50H of a cleaner 30; and
a charging stand 40B that supplies power to the robot cleaner 20.
Beck does not disclose a charging stand coupling part that is disposed on a lower side of the station coupling part and to which a robot cleaner coupling plate and the charging stand are coupled, and wherein a robot cleaner is coupled to the robot cleaner coupling plate.
However, Keiler teaches docking station 104 [Figs. 1-3] including a charging stand coupling part 130 [Figs. 3A-3B] that is disposed on a lower side of a station coupling part 116 and to which a robot cleaner coupling plate 128 and the charging stand 106 are coupled, and wherein a robot cleaner 136 is coupled to the robot cleaner coupling plate 114.
The only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is that the prior art does not incorporate the charging stand coupling part and the cleaner/docking assembly into a single combined apparatus. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities to incorporate both the cleaner/docking assembly of Beck and the charging stand coupling part of Keiler into a combined apparatus before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. No inventive effort would have been required, the resulting combined apparatus would yield predictable results, and the combined features would be expected to work as intended, with each element in the combined apparatus performing the same function as it did separately. Finally, no new functionality would arise from the combination.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the charging stand coupling part of Keiler with the cleaner/docking assembly of Beck in order to yield the predictable result of having an efficient cleaning station that holds both the cleaner and the robot docking station.
Re claim 2, Beck further teaches wherein the station coupling part 60 includes:
a station support plate 60E that is disposed to face a lower surface of the cleaner station and in contact with the lower surface of the cleaner station [“the head element 60E form fit, force fit and / or material fit with the head module 50”]; and
a support plate cover [construed housing/casing of head module 50 as seen in figures 1-3] that is coupled to an upper side of the station support plate 60E [the housings would be couple to an upper side of the head element 60E] and covers at least a portion of the lower surface of the cleaner station 50.
Re claim 3, Beck further teaches wherein the station coupling part 60 further includes a support frame [part that is form fitted, forced fitted and/or material fitted would inherently have a frame, “the head element 60E form fit, force fit and / or material fit with the head module 50] that is coupled between the station support plate 60E and the support plate cover [housing/casing of module 50 as seen on figures 1-3] and supports the lower surface of the cleaner station [“the head element 60E form fit, force fit and / or material fit with the head module 50”].
Re claim 4, Keiler further teaches the robot cleaner coupling part [Fig. 2B] that includes: a coupling frame 130 {Fig. 3A] that is disposed on a lower side of a station coupling part 116, and disposed in parallel with the station coupling part 116 at a predetermined interval; and a charging stand receiving hole 132 [Figs. 3A-3B] that is formed in the coupling frame 114 and accommodates the charging stand 106 [Fig. 2A] that supplies power to the robot cleaner.
Re claim 5, Keiler further teaches a pair of connection walls 118 that connect the station coupling part 116 and the charging stand coupling part 114.
Re claim 6, Keiler further teaches wherein an upper portion of the coupling frame is covered by the robot cleaner coupling plate [Fig. 3A].
Re claim 8, Beck further teaches wherein a station through hole [opening of housing/casing of moduel 50] through which the cleaner station passes is formed in the support plate cover [housing/casing of module 50]. Beck and Keiler does not teach and a maximum diameter of the station through hole is smaller than a minimum diameter of the lower surface of the cleaner station.
However, Applicant has not disclosed the significance of using a through hole smaller than a minimum diameter of the lower surface of the cleaner station other than using the cover for covering the support plate. It would have been an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the dimensions claimed since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04 IV A.
Re claim 9, Beck and Keiler does not specifically teach wherein a station receiving groove in which the lower surface of the cleaner station is accommodated is formed in the station support plate and in a state in which the support cover is coupled to the station support plate, at least a portion of the support plate cover covers a vertical upper portion of the station receiving groove.
However, this would be an obvious configuration in Beck. Beck teaches a form fitted, forced fitted and/or material fitted connection between the station support plate 60 and the cleaner station 50. By definition, all of these connections would have some type of male/female (or groove) configuration.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a station receiving groove in the support plate gleaned from the teachings of Beck. Furthermore, the support plate cover [construed as the housing/casing of module 50] would cover the configuration, since the cover covers the whole module.
Re Claim 12, Beck and Keiler does not teach a wire passage groove that is formed by protruding from the support plate cover in an arch shape and through which a wire passes.
However, Keiler does teach a wire passage to the top of the shelf [¶15]. It would be a matter of design choice to have a wire passage groove that is formed by protruding from a support plate cover in an arch shape and through which a wire passes in Beck, in order to yield the predictable result of storage of excess length of charging cord.
Re claim 13, Beck further teaches a support wall 40C that extends from the connection wall and supports the station coupling part 60.
Re claim 14, Keiler further teaches a plurality of signal passage holes [opening in the stand 104] formed in the support wall 118 to allow a signal to pass through.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beck DE 102019002827 A1 in view of Keiler US 2019/0357747 A1 and in further view of Zhang CN 111920354 A.
Re claim 7, Beck and Keiler teach the invention as discussed above for claim 1, but fail to teach a wire organizer that is disposed between the pair of connection walls, disposed below the station support plate, and capable of winding a wire.
Zhang teaches a wire organizer 6 that is disposed in the charging stand capable of winding a wire. The wire organizer would be between the pair of connection walls, disposed below the station support plate in the combination.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the wire organizer of Zhang with the assembly of Beck and Zhang, in order to yield the predictable result of winding the power cord of the charging stand.
Claim(s) 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beck DE 102019002827 A1 in view of Kim WO 2021/177699.
Re claim 15, Beck discloses a cleaner system, comprising:
a cleaner 30 that includes a suction part with a suction passage through which air is able to flow, and a dust bin 30C that stores dust separated through the dust separating part;
a cleaner station 10 that includes a coupling part 50 to which the dust bin 30C is coupled,
a dust collecting part 50H that collects dust inside the dust bin, a dust collecting motor 50J that generates a suction force to suck the dust inside the dust bin into the dust collecting part, and a
housing [housing of module 50] that includes the dust collecting part and the dust collecting motor therein along a longitudinal direction;
a robot cleaner 20 that includes a battery and a motor [inherent] inside and moves along a floor surface to clean the floor surface; [intended use of the robot cleaner 20];
a charging stand 40C that supplies power to the robot cleaner 20;
a robot cleaner coupling plate 40B on which the robot cleaner is coupled at an upper portion thereof and through which a charging terminal 40E of the charging stand passes; and
a connection assembly 60, 40 that is coupled to a lower side of the cleaner station 50, accommodates the charging stand therein, and is coupled to the robot cleaner coupling plate.
Beck does not disclose a dust separating part having at least one cyclone part.
However, Kim teaches a dust separating part 213 having at least one cyclone part.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine a dust separating part having at least one cyclone part with Beck in order to yield the predictable result of efficient separation of dust.
Re clam 16, Beck further teaches wherein the charging stand is disposed below the cleaner station 10, and the robot cleaner 20 is disposed below the cleaner 30.
Re claim 17, Beck and Kim teach the invention as discussed above for claim 1, but fail to teach wherein the charging stand is electrically connected to the cleaner station and receives current through the cleaner station.
It would have been an obvious reversal and/or rearrangement of parts, since it has been held that a rearranging part (in this case, the current so that the charging stand receives current through the cleaner station) would be obvious, absent any evidence the rearrangement is significant. MPEP 2144.04 VI A & C.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-11 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record does not show or fairly render obvious the combination set forth in the claims. In particular, the prior art does not show a station receiving groove in which the lower surface of the cleaner station is accommodated, and a frame receiving groove that is formed to surround an outside of the station receiving groove and receives the support frame.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Carlos A. Rivera whose telephone number is (571)270-5697. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM -4PM. 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.
C. A. R.
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3723
/C. A. RIVERA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights