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 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 44 and 45 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 44 recites the limitation "the voltage" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent support for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear to the Examiner if the voltage referred to is the rated voltage of a battery or the current voltage of a battery. To expedite prosecution, the examiner has interpreted claim 44 under broadest reasonable interpretation.
Claim 45 is rejected accordingly since under 35 USC 112(b) since they are dependent on
claim 44.
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(s) 1, 19, 21, 46, 48, 57-59 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20210052121 A1) in view of Sato (WO 2018100772 A1) and further in view of Young (KR 20080105801 A).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a vacuum cleaner docking station (100; fig. 1; para. 103) comprising: a separator (20; fig. 1; para. 100) operable to separate debris from a suction airflow when connected to a vacuum cleaner (fig. 1; para. 100), the separator including a dirty air inlet (30; fig. 4; para. 101), a clean air outlet (13; fig. 4; para. 97), and a separator debris collector (inside of 20; fig. 4; para. 101) having a debris outlet (the opening created when door 21 is opened; figs. 5-7; para. 137 and 138;
a dock (as annotated inf fig. 1 below), the separator removably coupled to the dock (as seen in fig. 1; para. 31), the dock further including a receiving portion (132; fig. 4; para.113-115) in fluid communication with the separator debris collector when the separator is coupled to the dock (fig. 4; 113-115),
a dock air outlet (114; fig. 1; 121 and 122),
an airflow source (131; fig. 2; para. 113 and 114) operable to generate an airflow along a fluid flow path that extends from the debris outlet of the separator to the dock air outlet (para. 113 and 114), and
a dock debris collector (fig. 2; Inner space of 111, para. 119) along the fluid flow path downstream of the receiving portion (fig. 2; para. 123 and 124),
PNG
media_image1.png
792
509
media_image1.png
Greyscale
While Kim discloses an airflow generated to remove debris from a canister (131; fig. 2; para. 113 and 114), Kim does not explicitly disclose a first power supply configured to provide a voltage to operate the airflow source;
However, Sato (WO 2018100772 A1), concerned with the art of a suction cleaning docking station, teaches a first power supply (52; fig. 13; pg. 14, ll. 326-345) configured to provide a voltage to operate the airflow source (fig. 13; pg. 14, ll. 326-345). Both Kim and Sato are concerned with the art of a suction cleaning docking station. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure the docking station, as taught by Kim, to have a power AC source that operates the airflow source, as taught by Sato, since it is known the art that high powered home appliances run on a commercial AC power supply.
Furthermore, Kim in view of Sato, do not explicitly teach a second power supply configured to provide a voltage to operate the airflow source when the first power supply is not available or energized, the second power supply including a DC-to-AC inverter.
However, Young (KR 20080105801 A), concerned with the art of a vacuum with multiple power sources, teaches a second power supply (12; fig. 1; pg. 6; ) configured to provide a voltage to operate the airflow source when the first power supply is not available or energized (fig. 1; pg. 7), the second power supply including a DC-to-AC inverter (18A; fig. 1; pg. 8) to drive a switch reluctance motor (20; fig. 1; pg.11).
Both Young and Kim, in view of Sato are concerned with the art of vacuums. Therefore, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure the motor (not explicitly stated, though, it would be obvious for a motor to be configured to drive the suction fan 131, Kim; fig. 2; paras. 113- 118), as taught by Kim in view of Sato, to be a switch reluctance motor primarily AC driven as taught by Young, and for the docking station, as taught by Kim in view of Sato, to further include a second power supply including a DC-to-AC inverter for the means of providing power when AC power is not present (pg. 3, ll.55-70, Young) and to convert the DC voltage into alternating pulse phase signals required to drive the motor at high speeds without overheating pg. 8 and 9 190-210 and pg. 12, ll.279-295, Young).
Regarding claim 19, Kim in view of Sato and further in view of Young, teach the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teach wherein the separator includes a door (21, Kim; fig. 5; para. 137) that moves between an open position to open the debris outlet (figs. 4 and 7, Kim; para. 139- 141) and a closed position to close the debris outlet (figs. 1and 5, Kim; paras. 139-141 and 150), and wherein the door is automatically opened when the separator is coupled to the dock (fig. 6 and 7, Kim; para. 147, 152 and 153).
Regarding claim 21, Kim in view of Sato and further in view of Young, teach the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teach wherein the airflow source includes a motor (20, Young; fig. 1; pg.11) and an impeller (113, Kim; fig. 2; paras. 113- 118).
However, Kim in view of Sato and further in view of Young do not explicitly teach wherein debris in the separator debris collector moves with the airflow generated by the impeller along the fluid flow path from the receiving portion through the impeller and into the dock debris collector. Though, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to relocate the impeller to be upstream of the dock debris collector, such that the debris moves through the impeller before entering the collector, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Please note that in the instant application, para. 24, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 46, Kim in view of Sato and further in view of Young teach the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teach wherein the airflow source is configured to operate by the first power supply when the first power supply is energized (fig. 13; pg. 14, ll. 326-345, Young) and the second power supply when the first power supply is not energized (pg. 7, Young), wherein the second power supply includes a battery (fig. 1; pg. 12, ll. 285-300, Young).
Regarding claim 48, Kim in view of Sato and further in view of Young teach the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teach wherein the second power supply charges a battery attached to the vacuum cleaner when the first power supply is not energized (Since Kim in view of Sato and further in view of Young teach charging a battery with AC power, it would be obvious for the device to be configured for the second power supply to further continue the role of charging the battery; fig. 2; para. 106, Kim).
Regarding claim 57, Kim in view of Sato and further in view of Young teach the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teach wherein the dock debris collector includes a wall forming an exterior surface of the dock (114, Kim; fig. 2; paras. 121 and 122), wherein a portion of the wall is air permeable (paras. 121 and 122, Kim).
Regarding claim 58, Kim in view of Sato and further in view of Young teach the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teach wherein a portion of the dock debris collector includes an air- permeable fabric forming the dock air outlet (inner side of 114, Kim; fig. 2; para. 122 teaches the limitation of a filter, which is air permeable).
Regarding claim 59, Kim in view of Sato and further in view of Young teach the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teach wherein the dock debris collector includes a filter bag (fig. 2, Kim; paras. 115-117).
Claim(s) 28-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20210052121 A1) in view of Sato (WO 2018100772 A1) and further in view of Young (KR 20080105801 A), Mantae (AU 2015207916 A1), Cohen (WO 2005081074 A1), and Morin (US 20160183752 A1).
Regarding claim 28, Kim in view of Sato and further in view of Young, teach the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teach wherein the vacuum cleaner docking station further comprises a dock controller configured to monitor the suction device (para. 133, Kim); the vacuum cleaner has a vacuum contact (the portion of the vacuum that contacts the bottom of 120, as shown in annotated fig. 1, Kim, below) and first connector (as annotated in fig. 4 below, Kim; para. 103), the dock includes a dock contact (the bottom of 120, Kim; fig. 4; para. 107) that has a fourth connector (123, Kim; fig. 4; para. 107), wherein when the vacuum cleaner is connected to the dock the first connector and the fourth connector are electrically connected and operable to transfer electricity charging a battery attached to the vacuum cleaner (fig. 4; para. 103, Kim).
PNG
media_image2.png
430
654
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
416
607
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, Kim in view of Sato and further in view of Young do not teach wherein the vacuum cleaner docking station further comprises a dock controller configured to control a battery charging circuit, wherein the vacuum cleaner further includes a vacuum contact having a second connector, and a third connector, and a dock contact having a fifth connector, and a sixth connector, wherein when the vacuum cleaner is connected to the dock the second connector and the fourth fifth connector are electrically connected and configured to communicate charging information, and the dock controller is configured to receive a signal when the third connector and the sixth connector are electrically connected.
However, Mantae (AU 2015207916 A1), concerned with the art of a docking station for vacuums, discloses wherein the vacuum cleaner docking station includes a dock controller (46; figs. 8-10; para. 99) configured to control a battery charging circuit (fig. 9; para. 106). Both Mantae and Kim in view of Sato further in view of Young are both, concerned with the art of a docking station for vacuums. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the docking station as taught by, Kim in view of Sato further in view of Young, to further include a battery charging circuit, as taught by Mantae, and further configure the controller, as taught by Kim in view of Sato further in view of Young , to control the battery charging circuit, as taught by Mantae, as a means to control charging operations (para. 106, Mantae).
Furthermore, Cohen (WO 2005081074 A1), concerned with the art of a docking station for a suction device teaches wherein the dock includes a dock contact (12) having a fourth connector (as annotated in fig. 1 below; para. 20), a fifth connector (as annotated in fig. 1 below; para. 20), and a sixth connector (Cohen teaches additional connectors can be added, para. 20), and the vacuum cleaner includes having a first connector, a second connector, and a third connector (Cohen teaches that the vacuum contact would mirror the connectors of the dock station regardless of their placement, paras. 20 and 30),
wherein when the vacuum cleaner is connected to the dock the first connector and the third fourth connector are electrically connected and operable to transfer electricity charging a battery attached to the vacuum cleaner (fig. 5; para. 30 and 71, Cohen teaches that the vacuum contact would mirror the connectors of the dock station regardless of their placement),
the second connector and the fourth fifth connector are electrically connected configured to communicate charging information (fig. 8; para. 20 and, it would be obvious that such information would further include charging information. In addition, Cohen teaches that the vacuum contact would mirror the connectors of the dock station regardless of their placement),
PNG
media_image4.png
616
697
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Both Cohen and Kim in view of Sato further in view of Young and Manae and concerned with the art of a docking station for a suction device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the vacuum contact, as taught by Kim in view of Sato further in view of Young and Manae, to further include, a second connector and a third connector, as taught by Cohen; to modify the dock contact, as taught by Kim in view of Sato further in view of Young and Manae, to further include a fifth connector and a sixth connector, as taught by Cohen; lastly, wherein when the vacuum cleaner is connected to the dock the first connector and the third fourth connector are electrically connected and operable to transfer electricity charging a battery attached to the vacuum cleaner, and the second connector and the fourth fifth connector are electrically connected configured to communicate charging information, as taught by Cohen, as a means to provide redundancy in the event that one of the contacts becomes damaged, dirty, or obstructed, another connecter is available, and further transmit data and information (para. 20, Cohen).
In addition, Morin (US 20160183752 A1), concerned with the art of a docking station for vacuums, teaches wherein the dock controller is configured to receive a signal when connectors are electrically connected (para. 56; figs. 2, 3, and 13). Both Morin and Kim in view of Sato further in view of Young , Mantae and Cohen are concerned with the art of a docking station for a suction device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure the third and sixth connector and the controller, as taught by Kim in view of Sato further in view of Young, Mantae, and Cohen, to receive a signal when connectors are electrically connected, as taught by Morin, as a means for the dock to detect the vacuum so follow up procedures such as charging and suction expulsion can begin ( paras. 10 and 86, Morin; fig. 13).
Regarding claim 29, Kim in view of Sato further in view of Young, Mantae, Cohen, and Morin teach the limitations of claim 28, as described above, and further teach wherein dock controller is configured to operate the airflow source based on the signal to the dock controller (paras. 10 and 86, Morin; fig. 13).
Regarding claim 30, Kim in view of Sato further in view of Young, Mantae, Cohen, and Morin teach the limitations of claim 28, as described above, and further teach wherein the third connector and the sixth connector are additional connectors operable to charge the battery attached to the vacuum cleaner.
As explained in claim 28 above, Morin teaches an electrical connection between the third and sixth connectors. In addition, Cohen teaches the use of multiple redundant contacts for power delivery (para. 20, Cohen). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure the third and sixth connector and the controller, as taught by Kim in view of Sato further in view of Young, Mantae, Cohen, and Morin, wherein the third connector and the sixth connector are additional connectors operable to charge the battery attached to the vacuum cleaner, as taught by Cohen, as to ensure the vacuum cans still successfully receive a charge when the main connectors are damaged, dirty, or obstructed (para. 20, Cohen).
Claim(s) 39, 40, 42-44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20210052121 A1) in view of Sato (WO 2018100772 A1) and further in view of Young (KR 20080105801 A), Mantae (AU 2015207916 A1), and Keun (KR 102061513 B1).
Regarding claim 39, Kim in view of Sato and further in view of Young, teach the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teach wherein the dock is configured to charge one battery (fig. 2; para. 106, Kim). However, Kim in view of Sato further in view of Young do not explicitly disclose wherein the dock includes a battery charging circuit, and wherein the dock is configured to receive and charge two batteries in a predetermined sequence.
However, Mantae (AU 2015207916 A1), concerned with the art of a docking station for vacuums, discloses wherein the dock includes a battery charge circuit (fig. 9; para. 106). Both Mantae and Kim in view of Sato further in view of Young are both concerned with the art of a docking station for vacuums. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the docking station as taught by Kim in view of Sato further in view of Young, to further include a battery charge circuit, as taught by Mantae, as a means to control charging operations (para. 106, Mantae).
In addition, Keun (KR 102061513 B1), concerned with the art of a vacuum cleaner docking station, discloses wherein the dock is configured to receive and charge two batteries (112 and 133; fig. 3; paras. 52 and 112). Both Keun and Kim in view of Sato further in view of Young and Mantae, are both concerned with the art of concerned with the art of a vacuum cleaner docking station. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the docking station as taught by, Kim in view of Sato further in view of Young and Mantae, to be configured to receive and charge two batteries, as taught by Keun, as a means to continue cleaning when the first battery runs out of power (para. 53, Keun).
In regard to charging the batteries in a predetermined sequence, this limitation would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp (wherein one of the options would be charging the batteries in a predetermined sequence). If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense” (See MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding claim 40, Kim in view of Sato and further in view of Young, teach the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teach a dock controller (para. 133, Kim) and the ability of a first battery attached to the vacuum cleaner attached to the dock to be charged (fig. 2; para. 106, Kim). However, Kim in view of Sato further in view of Young do not explicitly disclose wherein a dock controller is configured to control a battery charging circuit, wherein the dock controller charges a first battery attached to the vacuum cleaner attached to the dock and charges a second battery received separate from the vacuum
cleaner, wherein the dock controller prioritizes charging of the first battery when the first battery and the second battery are connected to the dock.
However, Mantae (AU 2015207916 A1), concerned with the art of a docking station for vacuums, discloses wherein the vacuum cleaner docking station includes a dock controller (46; figs. 8-10; para. 99) configured to control a battery charging circuit (fig. 9; para. 106). Both Mantae and Kim in view of Sato further in view of Young are both concerned with the art of docking station for vacuums. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the docking station as taught by, Kim in view of Sato further in view of Young, to further include a battery charge circuit, as taught by Mantae, and further configure the controller, as taught by Kim in view of Sato further in view of Young, to control the charging circuit, as taught by Mantae, as a means to control charging operations (para. 106, Mantae).
In addition, Keun (KR 102061513 B1), concerned with the art of a vacuum cleaner docking station, discloses wherein the dock controller (115; fig. 4; para. 59) charges a first battery (19; fig. 4; paras. 52 and 63) attached to the vacuum cleaner attached to the dock (as seen in fig. 1; para. 63) and charges a second battery (20; fig.1; paras 62 and 63); received separate from the vacuum cleaner (as seen in fig. 1; para. 62). Both Keun and Kim in view of Sato further in view of Young and Mantae, are concerned with the art of a vacuum cleaner docking station. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the docking station as taught by, Kim in view of Sato further in view of Young and Mantae, to be configured to receive and charge a second battery received separate from the vacuum, as taught by Keun, as a means to continue cleaning when the first battery runs out of power (para. 53, Keun).
In regard to wherein the dock controller prioritizes charging of the first battery when the first battery and the second battery are connected to the dock. Staubsauger (DE 202015103964 U1) teaches wherein the dock controller prioritizes charging of the first battery when the first battery and the second battery are connected to the dock (fig. 8; para. 24), however, lacks adequate motivation.
However, this limitation would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp (including wherein the dock controller prioritizes charging of the first battery when the first battery and the second battery are connected to the dock). If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense” (See MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding claim 42, Kim in view of Sato and further in view of Young, teach the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teach wherein the dock is configured to receive and charge one battery (fig. 2 para. 106, Kim). However, Kim in view of Sato and further in view of Young do not explicitly disclose wherein the dock includes a battery charging circuit, and wherein the dock is configured to receive and charge three batteries.
However, Mantae (AU 2015207916 A1), concerned with the art of a docking station for vacuums, wherein the dock includes battery charging circuit (fig. 9; para. 106). Both Mantae and Kim in view of Sato further in view of Young are both, concerned with the art of a docking station for vacuums. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the dock as taught by Kim in view of Sato further in view of Young, to further include a battery charging circuit, as taught by Mantae, as a means to control charging operations (para. 106, Mantae).
In addition, Keun (KR 102061513 B1), concerned with the art of a vacuum cleaner docking station, disclose wherein the dock is configured to receive and charge two batteries (112 and 133; fig. 3; paras. 52 and112). Both Keun and Kim in view of Sato further in view of Young and Mantae, are both concerned with the art of concerned with the art of a vacuum cleaner docking station. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the docking station as taught by, Kim in view of Sato further in view of Young and Mantae, to be configured to receive and charge two batteries, as taught by Keun, as a means to continue cleaning when the first battery runs out of power (para. 53, Keun). Though Kim in view of Sato further in view of Young , Mantae, and Keun teach wherein the dock is configured to only receive and charge two batteries, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure the dock to receive and charge three batteries, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (Refer to MPEP 2144.04 (VI-B) St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8).
Regarding claim 43, Kim in view of Sato and further in view of Young, teach the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teach wherein the dock is configured to receive and charge one battery (fig. 2 para. 106, Kim). However, Kim in view of Sato and further in view of Young do not explicitly disclose wherein the dock includes a battery charging circuit, and wherein the dock is configured to receive and charge four batteries.
However, Mantae (AU 2015207916 A1), concerned with the art of a docking station for vacuums, wherein the dock includes battery charging circuit (fig. 9; para. 106). Both Mantae and Kim in view of Sato further in view of Young are both, concerned with the art of a docking station for vacuums. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the dock as taught by, Kim in view of Sato further in view of Young, to further include a battery charging circuit, as taught by Mantae, as a means to control charging operations (para. 106, Mantae).
In addition, Keun (KR 102061513 B1), concerned with the art of a vacuum cleaner docking station, disclose wherein the dock is configured to receive and charge two batteries (112 and 133; fig. 3; paras. 52 and112). Both Keun and Kim in view of Sato further in view of Young and Mantae, are both concerned with the art of concerned with the art of a vacuum cleaner docking station. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the docking station as taught by, Kim in view of Sato further in view of Young and Mantae, to be configured to receive and charge two batteries, as taught by Keun, as a means to continue cleaning when the first battery runs out of power (para. 53, Keun). Though Kim in view of Sato further in view of Young , Mantae and Keun teach wherein the dock is configured to only receive and charge two batteries, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure the dock to receive and charge four batteries, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (Refer to MPEP 2144.04 (VI-B) St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8).
Regarding claim 44, Kim in view of Sato and further in view of Young teach the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teach wherein the dock is configured to receive and charge a first battery (fig. 2 para. 106, Kim). However Kim in view of Sato further in view of Young do not explicitly disclose wherein the dock includes a battery charging circuit and wherein the dock is configured to receive and charge a second battery, where the voltage of the first battery is different from the voltage of the second battery.
However, Mantae (AU 2015207916 A1), concerned with the art of a docking station for vacuums, discloses wherein the dock includes a battery charge circuit (fig. 9; para. 106). Both Mantae and Kim in view of Sato further in view of Young are concerned with the art of a docking station for vacuums. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the docking station as taught by Kim in view of Sato further in view of Young, to further include a battery charge circuit, as taught by Mantae, as a means to control charging operations (para. 106, Mantae).
In addition, Keun (KR 102061513 B1), concerned with the art of a vacuum cleaner docking station, discloses wherein the dock is configured to receive and charge a first and battery and a second battery (112 and 133; fig. 3; paras. 52 and112). Both Keun and Kim in view of Sato further in view of Young and Mantae, are both concerned with the art of concerned with the art of a vacuum cleaner docking station. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the docking station as taught by Kim in view of Sato further in view of Young and Mantae, to be configured to receive and charge two batteries, as taught by Keun, as a means to continue cleaning when the first battery runs out of power (para. 53, Keun).
In regard to the limitation that the voltage of the first battery is different from the voltage of the second battery, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that batteries at different charge levels recite different voltages.
Claim(s) 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20210052121 A1) in view of Sato (WO 2018100772 A1) and further in view of Young (KR 20080105801 A) and Tsuboi (TW 201336464 A).
Regarding claim 41, Kim in view of Sato and further in view of Young, teach the limitations of claim 1, as described above and further teach a dock controller (para. 133, Kim) and the ability of a battery to be charged (fig. 2 para. 106, Kim). However, Kim in view of Sato and further in view of Young, do not explicitly disclose wherein the dock includes a battery charging circuit, wherein the dock controller receives a signal from a battery and determines a charging voltage, and wherein the battery charging circuit charges the battery at the charging voltage.
However, Tsuboi (TW 201336464 A), concerned with the art of a docking station for vacuums, discloses dock controller (52; fig. 7; pg. 13, ll. 549-570), wherein the dock includes a battery charging circuit (pg. 14, ll.594- 605), wherein the dock controller receives a signal from a battery ( signal is interpreted under BRI as the voltage of the battery, which is received through the voltage detection unit 52; fig. 7; pg. 18, ll. 760-775) and determines a charging voltage (fig. 7; pg. 18, ll. 760-775), and wherein the battery charging circuit charges the battery at the charging voltage (the battery circuit is in charge of charging operations and provides the necessary voltage to the battery; fig. 7; pg. 14, ll. 594- 605)
Both Tsuboi and Kim in view of Sato and further in view of Young are concerned with the art of a docking station for vacuums. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the dock, as taught by Kim in view of Sato and further in view of Young, to further include a battery charging circuit and a voltage detection unit, as taught by Tsuboi; to configure the dock controller, as taught by Kim in view of Sato and further in view of Young, to receive a signal from a battery and determine a charging voltage, as taught by Tsuboi; lastly, to have the battery charging circuit charge the battery at the charging voltage, as taught by Tsuboi, as a means to prevent the battery from overheating and provide adequate voltage.
Claim(s) 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20210052121 A1) in view of Sato (WO 2018100772 A1) and further in view of Young (KR 20080105801 A), Mantae (AU 2015207916 A1), Keun (KR 102061513 B1), and Hoyong (KR 20200029256 A).
Regarding claim 45, Kim in view of Sato further in view of Young, Mantae, and Keun, teach the limitations of claim 44, as described above and further teach wherein the charging voltage of the first battery is less than thirty (30) volts (one of ordinary skill in the arts would understand that a dead battery is less than 30 volts). However, Kim in view of Sato further in view of Young, Mantae, and Keun do not teach wherein the charging voltage of the second battery is greater than (30) volts.
However, Hoyong (KR 20200029256 A), concerned with the art of vacuum charging station, teaches wherein the charging voltage of a battery is greater than (30) volts (paras. 86 and 87). Both Hoyong and Kim in view of Sato further in view of Young, Mantae, and Keun are concerned with the art of vacuum charging station. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure the battery charging circuit, as taught by Kim in view of Sato further in view of Young, Mantae, and Keun, to be capable of charging the second battery at greater than 30 volts, as taught by Hoyong, as a means to ensure the charging system delivers adequate voltage to safely and efficiently charge high capacity battery (paras. 85-87, Hoyong).
Claim(s) 49 and 50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20210052121 A1) in view of Sato (WO 2018100772 A1) and further in view of Young (KR 20080105801 A) and Han (US 20220047142 A1).
Regarding claim 49, Kim in view of Sato and further in view of Young teach the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teach wherein the vacuum cleaner docking station further comprises a dock controller configured to monitor the suction device (para. 133, Kim). However, Kim in view of Sato and further in view of Young, does not explicitly teach wherein the dock controller monitors the voltage of the second power supply and charges the second power supply from the first power supply when the voltage of the second power supply drops below a threshold.
However, Han (US 20220047142 A1), concerned with the art of power management for suction devices, discloses wherein the suction device contains a controller (1800; fig. 4; para. 76) configured to monitor the voltage of the power supply (fig. 4; para. 76).
Both Han and Kim in view of Sato further in view of Young are concerned with the art of suction devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure the docking controller as taught by Kim in view of Sato further in view of Young, to monitor the voltage of the second power supply, as taught by Han, as a known preventative means in the art to not deplete the battery voltage to zero and prevent the damage of its battery cells.
In regard to the dock controller configured to charge the second power supply from the first power supply when the voltage of the second power supply drops below a threshold, It would be obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing the date of the claimed invention to configure the dock controller as taught by, Kim in view of Sato further in view of Young and Han, to charge the second power supply from the first power supply when the voltage of the second power supply drops below a threshold, as a means to not deplete the battery voltage to zero and prevent the damage of its battery cells.
Regarding claim 50, Kim in view of Sato and further in view of Young teach the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teach wherein the vacuum cleaner docking station further comprises a dock controller configured to monitor the suction device (para. 133, Kim). However, Kim in view of Sato and further in view of Young, does not explicitly disclose wherein the dock controller monitors the voltage of the second power supply and disables the second power supply when the voltage of the second power supply drops below a threshold.
However, Han (US 20220047142 A1), concerned with the art of power management for suction devices, discloses wherein the controller of a suction device (1800; fig. 4; para. 76) is configured to monitor the voltage of the power supply (fig. 4; para. 76).
Both Han and Kim in view of Sato further in view of Young are concerned with the art of suction devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure the docking controller as taught by, Kim in view of Sato further in view of Young, to monitor the voltage of the second power supply, as taught by Han, as a known preventative means in the art to not deplete the battery voltage to zero and further prevent the damage of its battery cells.
In regard to the dock controller disabling the second power supply when the voltage of the second power supply drops below a threshold, it would be obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing the date of the claimed invention to configure the dock controller as taught by, Kim in view of Sato further in view of Young and Han, to configure the dock controller to disable the second power supply when the voltage of the second power supply drops below a threshold, as a known means in the art to not deplete the battery voltage to zero and further prevent the damage of its battery cells.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Staubsauger (DE 202015103964 U1) teaches wherein the dock controller prioritizes charging of the first battery when the first battery and the second battery are connected to the dock (fig. 8; para. 24).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T. FARRELL whose telephone number is (571)270-0401. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM - 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.
/MICHAEL THADDUES FARRELL JR/ Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights