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 .
Drawings
Figure 11-15 are unclear. The reference numbers and lead lines are visible but the actual drawing is faint and difficult to read. It is suggested to submit new drawings.
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: a position determination apparatus in claim 4 and 14.
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 § 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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-9, 11-13, 15-18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (CN 212465864).
With regards to claim 1, 3 and 20, Yang teaches an automatic cleaning device, configured with a dust collection function, and comprising: a moving platform (11), comprising an accommodating chamber (where 12 is received), wherein the moving platform is configured to automatically move on an operating surface; and a cleaning module, comprising a dust box (12) and a main brush module (15), wherein the dust box is detachably mounted in the accommodating chamber, and the dust box comprises a first side wall and a second side wall that are provided opposite to each other (figure 5/6); wherein the accommodating chamber further comprises a third side wall provided corresponding to the first side wall of the dust box, and a fourth side wall provided corresponding to the second side wall of the dust box (figure 5/6), wherein the third side wall and the fourth side wall respectively comprise an air inlet hole, to provide intake airflows to the dust box from two directions during a dust collection process.
Yang teaches all the essential elements of the claimed invention however fails to teach that the air inlet hole is a plurality of air inlet holes. 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 air inlet hole so that it comprises a plurality of air inlet holes since duplicating parts for a multiple effect is a modification that is well known in the art. MPEP 2144.04. Having a plurality of air holes will allow for more airflow to the dust box thus increasing the amount of dust collected.
With regards to claim 2, 3 and 20, a source of the intake airflows comprises at least one of: an airflow entering from a top gap of the moving platform, an airflow entering from a gap of the main brush module (enters via the gap at the brush module, 111), or an airflow entering from a rear side wall of the moving platform (enters via the side wall 112).
With regards to claim 5 and 15, the airflow entering from the gap of the main brush module comprises an airflow entering from a gap between a main brush and a lower shell, and then passing through an opening around a main brush drive motor to a front wall of the accommodating chamber (figure 8; air enters at 111 to 121).
With regards to claim 6 and 16, the airflow entering from the rear side wall of the moving platform comprises an airflow passing thorough air inlet notches of baffles on two sides of a fan bracket to a side surface of the accommodating chamber after entering interior of a shell of the moving platform from an exhaust port (figure 8; air enters at 112, thru 14 and out 113).
With regards to claim 7, the airflow entering from the rear side wall of the moving platform comprises an airflow entering directly from the exhaust port to a side surface of the accommodating chamber (enters at 112).
With regards to claim 8 and 17, at least one of the third side wall and/or the fourth side wall respectively comprises a plurality of spacers on outer sides, and the plurality of spacers form a plurality of air paths (the walls surrounding the openings are the spacers that direct air flow into the opening).
With regards to claim 9 and 18, a front side wall of the accommodating chamber respectively comprises an air passage on an upper outer side, and at least one of the airflow entering from the top gap of the moving platform and/or the airflow entering from the gap of the main brush module passes through the air passage to the plurality of air inlet holes (not shown, but there inherently must be an opening or air passage in the accommodating chamber that aligns with 121 to allow for unobstructed airflow).
With regards to claim 11, the dust box comprises a first air inlet door and a second air inlet door, the first air inlet door and the second air inlet door are respectively located on the first side wall and the second side wall of the dust box, and wherein the plurality of air inlet holes cover at least a portion of the first air inlet door and the second air inlet door (valve 18/19).
With regards to claim 12, the first air inlet door and the second air inlet door are located at asymmetric positions of the first side wall and the second side wall respectively, to increase swirl speed of an airflow after entering the dust box (they are not located asymmetrically).
With regards to claim 13 and 20, a dust collection station comprising a dust collection port, and the dust collection port is docked with a port of the main brush module for dust collection (not shown but described in the specification as the maintenance station).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 10, 14 and 19 are 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:
Claim 4 and 14 includes the limitation of airflow entering from the top gap of the moving platform comprises at least one of an airflow entering from a gap between a protecting cover and a top surface of the moving platform, or an airflow entering from a gap between the protecting cover and a position determination apparatus.
Claim 10 and 19 includes the limitation that the accommodating chamber comprises a first chamber and a second chamber that are provided adjacent to each other in sequence in a forward direction of the automatic cleaning device, a dust suction port is provided at a bottom of a front side wall of the first chamber, an air outlet is provided on a rear side wall at a connection between the first chamber and the second chamber, the dust box further comprises a first opening and a second opening, and the dust suction port, the air outlet, the first opening and the second opening are all substantially located on a central axis in a front-to-back direction of the automatic cleaning device.
None of the prior art teach these limitations nor would it have been obvious to modify the prior art to achieve the claimed invention. Therefore, these claims are free from the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAY LYNN KARLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1268. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th (6am-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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-272-4475. 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.
/SHAY KARLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
