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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim(s) 1-9 and 13-14 is/are generic to the following disclosed patentably distinct species: (I) the species disclosed by figures 3 & 4 requiring, inter alia, a Hall sensor (see claim 10); (II) the species disclosed by figures 5 & 6 requiring, inter alia, a photoelectric sensor (see claim 12); and (III) the species disclosed by figures 7 & 8 requiring, inter alia, a magnetic angle sensor (see claim 11). The species are independent or distinct because they require different components and/or have different modes of operation. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply:
it is necessary to search for one of the inventions in a manner that is not likely to result in finding art pertinent to the other invention(s) (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species or a grouping of patentably indistinct species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the species to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
During a telephone conversation with Chen Luo on 3/9/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of species II, claim 12. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 10 & 11 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS/IDSs) submitted on 4/22/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS/IDSs is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Regarding claims 13 & 14, the claims are not in proper dependent form; specifically, they do not "contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed." 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) (emphasis added). Additionally, there is no indication of which method steps from claim 1 are being incorporated into these claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-9, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chinese Patent Document No. CN114451831A to Yin et al.
Regarding claim 1, Yin teaches a detection method for a dust box's dust fullness, applied to a cleaning device, wherein the cleaning device comprises a fan assembly and a dust box, the fan assembly communicates with the dust box via a dust inlet, and a flip cover flipped to open and close the dust inlet is provided in the dust box; the detection method comprises:
obtaining a target distance between the flip cover and the dust inlet by a processor, and storing the target distance in a memory by the processor (“The first preset threshold may be set according to a user's demand for cleaning efficiency of the cleaning robot.”);
obtaining an operating distance between the flip cover and the dust inlet by a detection module ((“the sensor is mounted on top of the waste bin and the first angle of rotation of the barrier is determined by measuring the distance between the sensor and the barrier” & “acquiring a first rotation angle of the baffle when the dust collection assembly is in a working state”; in other words, the rotation angle corresponds to a distance between the cover and the inlet); and
comparing the target distance with the operating distance by the processor, and determining whether the dust box is full of dust by the processor (“judge whether the turned angle of baffle is not less than the second and predetermine the threshold value to this confirms whether to empty the rubbish in cleaning robot's the rubbish box” & “in response to the first rotation angle not being larger than a first preset threshold value, judging that the dust suction assembly needs to be cleaned”).
Regarding claim 2, Yin teaches the detection method for the dust box's dust fullness according to claim 1, wherein the comparing the target distance with the operating distance by the processor, and determining whether the dust box is full of dust by the processor comprises:
in response to that the fan assembly is operating, the operating distance being less than the target distance, determining that the dust box is full of dust by the processor (“According to the working principle of the dust collection assembly, the fan works to generate negative pressure to form suction force, the baffle of the dust collection assembly sucks garbage into the garbage box under the action of the suction force, and the baffle completely covers the inlet of the garbage box under the action of gravity. Because the baffle needs to be opened under the suction effect, even the rubbish in the rubbish box is more, the baffle also can appear opening by force under great suction effect, consequently, need set up different first preset threshold value to the first rotation angle of baffle under the different suction to judge the dust absorption subassembly under the different suction state and need be cleared up the trigger suggestion condition.”).
Regarding claim 3, Yin teaches the detection method for the dust box's dust fullness according to claim 2, wherein within a range of the target distance, an angle between the flip cover and a side wall of the dust box where the dust inlet is provided is between 0° and 30° (“When the suction force is 1800Pa, the first preset threshold value is 20 degrees”).
Regarding claim 4, Yin teaches the detection method for the dust box's dust fullness according to claim 1, wherein the comparing the target distance with the operating distance by the processor, and determining whether the dust box is full of dust by the processor comprises:
in response to that the fan assembly stops operating, the operating distance being greater than the target distance, determining that the dust box is full of dust by the processor (“when the first rotation angle of the baffle is not greater than the first preset threshold or the third preset threshold, the cleaning robot works inefficiently or inefficiently, the dust collection assembly is controlled to stop working while the first message prompt or the second message prompt is sent out”).
Regarding claim 6, Yin teaches a dust box assembly, applied to a cleaning device, wherein the cleaning device further comprises a processor and a memory, and the memory stores a control program executable on the processor; in response to that the processor executes the control program, the detection method for the dust box's dust fullness according to claim 1 is implemented; the dust box assembly comprises:
a box body provided with a dust inlet (“garbage box”);
a flip cover flipably provided in the box body to open and close the dust inlet (“baffle”); and
a detection module electrically connected to the processor, wherein the detection module is configured to obtain an operating distance between the flip cover and the dust inlet (“The first rotation angle of the baffle is obtained according to the detection result of the sensor by obtaining the detection result of the sensor arranged on the garbage box. The sensor may be a displacement sensor, a capacitive angular displacement sensor, an inclination sensor, an acceleration sensor, or the like, and may detect the first rotation angle of the baffle.” & “the first angle of rotation of the barrier is determined by measuring the distance between the sensor and the barrier”).
Regarding claim 7, Yin teaches the dust box assembly according to claim 6, wherein the box body is provided with an air inlet side wall inclined relative to a horizontal plane, the air inlet side wall is provided with the dust inlet, and a rotating shaft of the flip cover is provided at the air inlet side wall and provided at an upper side of the dust inlet; in response to that the cleaning device stops operating, the flip cover is covered at the dust inlet (compare figure 8 of Yin to figure 1 of the instant application).
Regarding claim 8, Yin teaches the dust box assembly according to claim 7, wherein the box body further comprises a top cover connected to an upper edge of the air inlet side wall, the detection module is provided adjacent to the dust inlet and/or provided at the top cover, and a detection head of the detection module is opposite to the flip cover in a rotation direction of the flip cover (claim 4: “obtaining a detection result of a sensor mounted on the rubbish box and obtaining the first rotation angle of the baffle plate according to the detection result of the sensor”).
Regarding claim 9, Yin teaches the dust box assembly according to claim 7, wherein the flip cover comprises a cover plate and a to-be-detected part provided at both sides of the rotating shaft, the cover plate is provided in the box body to open and close the dust inlet; the detection head of the detection module is provided toward an extension direction of the rotating shaft and is opposite to the to-be-detected part in response to that the cover plate covers the dust inlet (“the dust collection assembly further comprises a rotating mechanism connected with the baffle, and the sensor is mounted on the rotating mechanism”).
Regarding claim 13, Yin discloses a cleaning device, comprising:
a dust box assembly (“garbage box”);
a processor (“processor”), and
a memory (“memory”);
wherein the memory stores a control program executable on the processor, and when the processor executes the control program, the detection method for the dust box's dust fullness according to claim 1 is implemented (see supra rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 14, Yin teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, wherein a control program is stored on the computer readable storage medium, and when the control program is executed by a processor, the detection method for the dust box's dust fullness according to claim 1 is implemented (claim 10).
Additionally, implementing a known function on a computer has been deemed obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art if the automation of the known function on a general purpose computer is nothing more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007); see also MPEP § 2143, Exemplary Rationales D and F and MPEP § 2114(IV)4. Because the limitations of claim 14 are known other than mere basic programming, i.e., merely general purpose computer-based implementation of the method, that limitation does not patentably distinguish the claim over the prior art.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin.
Regarding claim 5, Yin teaches the detection method for the dust box's dust fullness according to claim 4, but does not teach explicitly wherein a value of the target distance is zero.
However, Yin teaches that the target distance can be modified based on the user’s needs (“The first preset threshold may be set according to a user's demand for cleaning efficiency of the cleaning robot.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to experiment with the results-effective variable of target distance based on how full or empty the user wants the dust bin to be when notified to empty it in order to better cater to the individual user’s preferences and standards.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin in view of Chinese Patent Document No. CN115349776A to Li.
Regarding claim 12, Yin teaches the dust box assembly according to claim 6, but does not teach explicitly wherein the detection module comprises a photoelectric sensor.
However, Li teaches wherein the detection module comprises a photoelectric sensor (“combining the infrared signal according to the photoelectric pair tube, detecting whether the dust box is full of dust”).
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the photoelectric sensor of Li with the additional sensing of Yin in order to provide redundancy in detection, thereby minimizing the disadvantages of each sensor and providing for maximum operational uptime if one sensor were to fail.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chinese Patent Document No. CN219699805U to Yao et al. discloses a garbage recycling device, garbage recycling component, base station, cleaning robot and system having detection of a moving mechanism not moving enough triggering the user to empty the containment mechanism.
Chinese Patent Document No. CN112630463A to Hu et al. discloses a method for detecting dust box dust of sweeping machine, device, sweeping machine and storage medium having a magnetic sensor to determine whether a dust box is full.
Japanese Patent Document No. JP2013169224A to Matsubara discloses a self-propelled cleaner having a dust amount detecting part for detecting the amount of the dust accumulated in the dust accumulating container.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert P Alejnikov whose telephone number is (571)270-5164. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00a-6:00p M-F.
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, Arleen Vazquez, can be reached at 571.272.2619. 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.
/ROBERT P ALEJNIKOV JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ARLEEN M VAZQUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857