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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is a response to the amendment filed by Applicant on 6/11/2026, which has been entered. Claims 4-5 & 10-11 have been withdrawn/cancelled. Claims 1-3, 6-9, and 12-14 are pending for examination.
Elections/Restrictions
The examiner agrees with the applicant’s response.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112
The applicant’s amendments do not overcome these rejections. The applicant is again advised that dependent claims must first name the claim from which they depend, then provide further limitations. Please see the 3/13/2026 Detailed Action at page 6 for more details.
Additionally, the applicant’s amendment to claim 1 presents new issues under 35 U.S.C. § 112, specifically 112(b) indefiniteness. The newly amended portion of claim 1 does not conform to concise and idiomatic English. It appears that the amendment might be a literal translation into English from a foreign document given that it is replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. The examiner has provided his best understanding of the claims below in order to provide as reasonable a response as possible, but a complete substantive examination on the merits is impossible at this time due to the incomprehensible amendment and accompanying remarks that are similarly difficult to understand.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 102 & 103
The applicant argues generally and without reference to specific claim language that Yin fails to teach all limitations of amended claim 1.
First, the applicant argues that the examiner improperly relied on an “obvious to try” rationale with a limited range of possibilities (values of target distance) by asserting that the examiner must derive the supporting rationale for the result-effective variable from the prior art itself. However, MPEP 2144.05(II)(B) states otherwise: specifically, as long as there is an articulated rationale—which the examiner did articulate on page 16 the 3/13/2026 Detailed Action—“obvious to try” with a limited range of possibilities like the target distance at issue is a valid motivation.
Second, the applicant argues that “Yin does not have the technical effect of the highlight features, that is, improving the detection accuracy of the dust box’s dust fullness.” The applicant’s argument is inapposite because there is no requirement that prior art teach the applicant’s perceived technical thrust or asserted advantage of an invention, but rather only the limitations of the claim.
Finally, the applicant makes arguments regarding Li, but the examiner does not rely on Li to teach the amended limitations.
Therefore, all claims stand rejected.
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, 6-9, and 12-14 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Specifically, the newly-added limitations of claim 1 are not concise, idiomatic English. As best understood by the examiner, those limitations require that the claimed method (1) have a target distance (the distance between the flip cover and the dust inlet) equal to zero and (2) determining that the dust box is full when the operating distance (also the distance between the flip cover and the dust inlet) is greater than zero and the fan assembly stops operating. Although a complete substantive examination on the merits is impossible at this time due to the incomprehensible amendment and accompanying remarks that are similarly difficult to understand, the examiner is providing his best attempt at prior art rejections of the amended claims below.
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 6, 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 § 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3, 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”);
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”).
But Yin 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 finite options available with regard to target distance (including zero) 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.
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 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 processor is configured to implement the detection method for the dust box's dust fullness according to claim 1 (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 processor is configured to implement the detection method for the dust box's dust fullness according to claim 1 (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(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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights