DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 45 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a first source of rotational” in lines 2-3 should read “a first source of rotational energy”; and “rotary grinding discs” in line 6 should read “rotational grinding discs”.
In claim 63, line 3, “rotary grinding discs” should read “rotational grinding discs”.
Note that claims 65-66 are new and have the incorrect status identifier of “Previously presented”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 65-66 and 71 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.
Regarding claim 65, the claim recites “the source of rotational energy is the electric motor.” However, there is antecedent basis for “a first” and “a second” source of rotational energy in claim 45, making it unclear which of these is being referred to in claim 65. For the purposes of this examination, claim 65 will be read as referring to either one of the first or second sources of rotational energy, as this appears to be the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Claim 66 is rejected as indefinite due to its dependency upon rejected claim 65.
Regarding claim 71, the claim recites “at least three autonomous grinder-polisher robot modules…wherein a first module includes grinding discs…a second module includes grinding discs…and a third module…”. However, claim 45 recites “a first autonomous grinder-polisher module comprising…a first plurality of rotational grinding discs” and “a second autonomous grinder-polisher module comprising…a second plurality of rotary grinding discs”. As there is antecedent basis for first and second modules with grinding discs in claim 45, it is unclear if the first and second modules including grinding discs recited in claim 71 are the same or different from the modules of claim 45. For the purposes of this examination, the first and second modules and grinding discs of claim 71 will be read as referring to the same first and second modules and grinding discs of claim 45.
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.
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.
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) 45, 47, 51, 54, 57-58, 61-63, and 67-69 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansemann (WO 2009/027140, previously cited) in view of Jang (US 2019/0038106, previously cited).
Regarding claim 45, Hansemann teaches a robotic ([0036]) machine for hard floor smoothing comprising a first autonomous grinder-polisher module comprising a first body (15v), a first source of rotational energy (17v) coupled to the first body, and a first plurality of rotational grinding discs (9v); a second autonomous grinder-polisher module comprising a second body (15h), a second source of rotational energy (17h) coupled to the second body, and a second plurality of rotary grinding discs (9h; [0027] each body has a pair of discs); a coupling structure (including elements 21, 25) connecting the first autonomous grinder-polisher module and the second autonomous grinder-polisher module (as shown in fig 2); wherein each of the first and second plurality of rotational grinding discs includes at least two discs ([0027] “provided in pairs”) configured to operate in counter rotational directions (described [0025]; shown by rotational arrows in fig 1) to remove floor material to smooth the floor ([0026]; function performed by the described “grinding”).
Hansemann does not teach the machine is configured to operate the first and second plurality of rotational grinding discs independently to control directional movement of the coupled modules, generate hydroplaning forces, and glide on the floor by hydroplaning alone. Jang teaches a robotic machine for hard floor smoothing wherein the robotic machine is configured to operate at least two rotary discs (41a, 41b) of an autonomous grinder-polisher module (40) independently to control directional movement, generate hydroplaning forces, and glide on a floor surface (independent rotational control described [0163-0166]) by hydroplaning alone ([0044]; moves by rotation of the finishing discs without an additional driving wheel). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the wheeled driving system of Hansemann with the spinning disc gliding system of Jang, by providing independent rotational control for each of the first and second plurality of rotational grinding discs on each of the modules which generate hydroplaning movement, achieving the predictable result of moving the robotic machine across the floor surface and eliminating the need for an additional driving wheel as taught by Jang ([0044]).
Regarding claim 47, Hansemann, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 45 as described above. Hansemann further teaches the first plurality of rotational grinding discs are dedicated to concrete grinding (note that the application to concrete does not limit the structure of the claimed machine; the grinding discs of Hansemann are capable of being applied to concrete).
Regarding claim 51, Hansemann, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 45 as described above. Hansemann further teaches the machine further comprising a handle (unlabeled arch shown in fig 2) extending upwardly from one of the autonomous grinder-polisher modules (extending up from 15h as shown in fig 2).
Regarding claim 54, Hansemann, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 45 as described above. Hansemann further teaches a liquid feed conduit (Ag) extending through the first plurality of rotational grinding discs (fig 1; [0026]).
Regarding claim 57, Hansemann, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 45 as described above. Hansemann further teaches a driving system including one or more sensors ([0037]). Hansemann does not teach the sensors are GPS, laser, LIDAR, sonar or ultra-sonic guide of beams or pulses. Jang further teaches the robotic machine including an ultra-sonic guide ([0058]). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an ultrasonic guide as the sensors in Hansemann, as this allows the machine to avoid obstacles as taught by Jang ([0058]).
Regarding claim 58, Hansemann, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 45 as described above. Hansemann further teaches the first plurality of rotational grinding discs are driven by belts ([0016]).
Regarding claims 61-63, Hansemann, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 45 as described above. Hansemann further teaches the source of rotational energy (17v, 17h) is an engine ([0029]; as broadly claimed, the motor described is considered an “engine” as claimed, as it provides rotational energy and these terms are often used interchangeably); the source of rotational energy is a motor ([0029]); and the source of rotational energy comprises a plurality of electric motors, and each of the plurality of rotary grinding discs is directly coupled to one of the plurality of electric motors (each disc coupled to motor 17v, 17h; [0029]; see 112b rejection above for explanation of interpretation).
Regarding claims 67-69, Hansemann, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 45 as described above. Hansemann further teaches the coupling structure comprises semi-rigid bar couplers (coupling structure comprising elements 21, 25 are semi-rigid bars, as the bars are solid while flexing relative to each other) that permit limited relative movement between adjacent modules ([0029], [0032]) during turning operations (function made possible by swiveling structure); wherein the first and second autonomous grinder-polisher modules are arranged in parallel configuration (as shown in fig 2, each module is capable of moving parallel to movement direction -R) and coupled via a rigid frame (25) that maintains the modules in fixed lateral spacing (laterally locked as described [0030]); wherein the first and second autonomous grinder-polisher modules are arranged in parallel configuration (as shown in fig 2, each module is capable of moving parallel to movement direction -R) and coupled via a flexible cage coupler (elements 21, 25 of coupling structure are flexible relative to each other) that permits relative angular displacement while maintaining module connection ([0029], [0030]).
Claim(s) 48, 65-66, and 71 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansemann and Jang as applied to claim 45 above, and further in view of Van Der Veen (US 2014/0154959, previously cited).
Regarding claim 48, Hansemann, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 45 as described above. Hansemann further teaches the first plurality of rotational grinding discs (9v) includes a first grinding disc a first grit, and a second grinding disc having a second grit (the discs having a grit is indicated by the description of “diamond grinding tools” in [0026]). Hansemann does not teach the first grit being coarser than the second grit. Van Der Veen teaches a robotic machine for hard floor smoothing including a plurality of grinding discs (14, 15) wherein a grit of the first grinding disc is coarser than a grit of the second grinding disc ([0035]). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the first grit of the first grinding disc of Hansemann coarser than the second grit of the second grinding disc in order to allow the machine to perform a successive two stage grinding process in a single pass along the floor as taught by Van Der Veen ([0035]).
Regarding claims 65-66, Hansemann, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 48 as described above. Hansemann further teaches the robotic machine comprising an electric motor, wherein the source of rotational energy (17v, 17h) is the electric motor ([0029]); and comprising a battery coupled to the electric motor and configured to drive the electric motor in a rotational direction ([0032], [0038]).
Regarding claim 71, Hansemann, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 45 as described above. Hansemann further teaches the robotic machine comprises at least three autonomous grinder-polisher robot modules (see 112b rejection above for explanation of interpretation) coupled in series (modules including first body 15v, second body 15h, and third module 11 are coupled to the machine in series as shown in fig 2), wherein a first module includes grinding discs (9v) with a first grit, a second module includes grinding discs (9h) with a second grit (the discs having a grit is indicated by the description of “diamond grinding tools” in [0026]), and a third module (11) includes a slurry suction system (as described [0024]). Hansemann does not teach the second grit is finer than the first grit. Van Der Veen teaches a robotic machine for hard floor smoothing including a first module including a grinding disc (14) and a second module including a grinding disc (15) wherein a grit of the second grinding disc is finer than a grit of the first grinding disc ([0035]). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the second grit of the second grinding discs of Hansemann finer than the first grit of the first grinding discs in order to allow the machine to perform a successive two stage grinding process in a single pass along the floor as taught by Van Der Veen ([0035]).
Claim 52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansemann and Jang as applied to claim 45 above, and further in view of Guertler et al (US 2007/0184754, previously cited).
Regarding claim 52, Hansemann, as modified, teaches all the elements of claim 45 as described above. Hansemann does not teach a magnetic ball drive. Guertler teaches a robotic machine for hard floor smoothing including a magnetic ball drive (including motor 55 (motors operate electromagnetically) and balls 42; [0023]). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective time of filing the invention to include a magnetic ball drive in the machine of Hansemann in order to achieve the predictable result of moving the machine in any direction as taught by Guertler ([0023]).
Claim 53 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansemann and Jang as applied to claim 45 above, and further in view of Schlischka (US 2016/0007817, previously cited).
Regarding claim 53, Hansemann, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 45 as described above. Hansemann does not teach two or more swivel wheel drives. Schlishcka teaches a robotic machine for hard floor smoothing including two swivel wheel drives (shown in fig 1, described [0041]). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective time of filing the invention to include two or more swivel wheel drives to the machine of Hansemann in order to allow the machine to adjust the drive to navigate obstacles as taught by Schlischka ([0021]).
Claim(s) 56 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansemann and Jang as applied to claim 45 above, and further in view of Copoulos (US 2009/0190099, previously cited).
Regarding claim 56, Hansemann, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 45 as described above. Hansemann further teaches a tank (31a, 31b) containing a grinding fluid ([0032]). Hansemann does not teach the grinding fluid being one or more of a hardener, softener, detergent, micro- polisher skin fluid, nano-polisher skin fluid, nano-silica concrete softener or hardened densifier with lithium or sodium silicate. Copoulos teaches a floor grinding machine using a grinding fluid including a hardener ([0067]). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a hardener as the grinding fluid in the machine of Hansemann, as a hardener makes a floor surface hard and durable as taught by Copoulos ([0067]).
Claim 60 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansemann and Jang as applied to claim 45 above, and further in view of Wosewick et al (US 2004/0031113, previously cited).
Regarding claim 60, Hansemann, as modified, teaches all the elements of claim 45 as described above. Hansemann does not teach a skirt in contact with the floor. Wosewick teaches a machine for hard floor smoothing including a skirt (42) in contact with the floor (fig 3) wherein the skirt is configured to inhibit liquid splashing from the machine (function achieved by contact with workpiece). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective time of filing the invention to include a skirt contacting the floor to the machine of Hansemann in order to contain debris from the smoothing operation as taught by Wosewick ([0033]).
Claim(s) 70 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansemann and Jang as applied to claim 45 above, and further in view of Kubo (US 5735959).
Regarding claim 70, Hansemann, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 45 as described above. Hansemann further teaches a handle assembly (unlabeled arch shown in fig 2) attachable to one of the first and second autonomous grinder-polisher modules (as shown in fig 2). Hansemann is silent as to how the handle is connected to the module and therefore does not teach sockets for receiving mating portions of a detachable handle for manual guidance assistance. Kubo teaches a machine for hard floor smoothing comprising a handle assembly attachable to a grinder-polisher module (113), the handle assembly comprising sockets (293; fig 28) for receiving mating portions (291) of a detachable (detachable by removal of mating portions 291 from sockets 293) handle (103) for manual guidance assistance (this is the function of a handle). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to detachably connect the handle of Hansemann by sockets which receive mating portions, as this achieves the predictable result of providing a pivoting handle attachment, which allows a user to move the handle back and forth relative to the module during use as taught by Kubo (col 19, lines 9-22).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks indicate that claims 67-71 are added by the current amendment. However, note that claims 65-66 are also new claims with the incorrect “Previously presented” status indicator.
Applicant's arguments filed 28 Oct 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claim amendments have overcome the previous 112a and 112b rejections. However, the current amendment results new issues of clarity as detailed in the 112b rejections above.
Applicant argues that Hansemann does not teach the claimed autonomous modules or the claimed coupling between them. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As broadly claimed, the first and second autonomous grinder-polisher modules of Hansemann include a first module comprising elements 15v, 17v, and 9v; and a second module including elements 15h, 17h, and 9h. As detailed in the rejection above, these modules are coupled by a coupling structure including elements 15 and 21. This is clearly shown in fig 2 of Hansemann. Contrary to applicant’s arguments, these modules of Hansemann each have their own source of rotational energy 17v and 17h. Applicant argues that the office acknowledged in the previous rejection that Hansemann is “silent as to the particular connection between the modular inserts and the grinding machine.” However, this statement was in reference to previous claim language which has been deleted and is no longer relevant. Applicant argues that the claims represent “fundamentally different architectures” from the cited references. However, as detailed above, the claim language fails to distinguish from the structure disclosed by the prior art. Applicant argues that Hansemann teaches away from the claimed invention by emphasizing a single-machine design for uniform grinding. However, this is not a teaching away from the claimed configuration which actively requires connection between the two modules to form a single machine.
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 MARCEL T DION whose telephone number is (571)272-9091. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5, F 9-3.
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.
/MARCEL T DION/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723