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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/04/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 51 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al (WO 2018/107465, citation by US 2020/0077858).
Zhang et al teach a robot and a method as claimed.
The robot comprises a housing 2,
a moving module 21,
a control module 27,
a wiping unit 22 with removable mops 22111,
a lifting mechanism 24,
a wiping unit rotating mechanism 2212,
sensors 25, 26,
a rechargeable battery 28.
The robot further comprises a base station.
The base station is disclosed as provided with a charging device and a cleaning device 11 and configured to charge the robot and clean wiping members (at least [0124], [0186], [0188], [0194], [0206], [0208]).
The control module is disclosed as controlling the functioning of the robot. This includes controlling the cleaning operation performed by the robot, switching from cleaning surfaces to the maintenance state of charging the battery and/or cleaning wiping/moping members, lifting, state switching, etc.
The robot is disclosed as changing the wiping/mop members (at least [0160]).
The robot is disclosed as performing the intended use and functioning recited by the claim.
See at least Figures 1-12, 14-15, 19-22, 24, 27-31, and the related description.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 52 and 53 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al (WO 2018/107465, citation by US 2020/0077858) in view of Augenbraun et al (US 2007/0061040).
Zhang et al, as applied above, teaches a robot as claimed except for the specific recitation of surface and carpet sensors, and communication unit(s).
Zhang et al teach the use of sensors, but does not specify the used sensors.
However, the claimed sensors and their use were conventional in the art as evidenced by Augenbraun et al.
Augenbraun et al also evidence that communication stations as claimed were conventional in the art.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the invention was filed to incorporate the conventional features of the cleaning robots, such a carpet sensor, and communication unit(s) for their known functions in the cleaning robot of Zhang et al in order to use known devices for their known functions.
Claim(s) 34-35, 37-38, 40, 44-45 and 48-49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al (WO 2018/107465, citation by US 2020/0077858) in view of CN 205054042.
Zhang et al teach a robot as claimed except for a lifting mechanism to lift the wiping unit relative to the housing.
Zhang et al also teach a method as claimed except for a lifting mechanism to lift the wiping unit relative to the housing.
The robot comprises a housing 2,
a moving module 21,
a control module 27,
a wiping unit 22 with removable mops 22111,
a lifting mechanism 24,
a wiping unit rotating mechanism 2212,
sensors 25, 26,
a rechargeable battery 28.
The robot further comprises a base station.
The base station is disclosed as provided with a charging device and a cleaning device 11 and configured to charge the robot and clean wiping members (at least [0124], [0186], [0188], [0194], [0206], [0208]).
The control module is disclosed as controlling the functioning of the robot. This includes controlling the cleaning operation performed by the robot, switching from cleaning surfaces to the maintenance state of charging the battery and/or cleaning wiping/moping members, lifting, state switching, etc.
The robot is disclosed as changing the wiping/mop members (at least [0160]).
The robot is disclosed as performing the intended use and functioning recited by the claim.
See at least Figures 1-12, 14-15, 19-22, 24, 27-31, and the related description.
On the other hand, CN 205054042 teaches that providing lifting of the wiping unit with respect to the housing when not cleaning prevents secondary pollution. CN 205054042 also teaches returning robot when the wiping unit is dirty. CN 205054042 also teaches a lifting mechanism to lift the wiping unit with respect to the housing. See at least Figures 1-3 and the related description and the description at Invention contents.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the lifting mechanism and its functioning proposed by CN 205054042 in the robot/method of Zhang et al in order to avoid secondary pollution.
Claim(s) 46 and 47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al (WO 2018/107465, citation by US 2020/0077858) in view of CN 205054042, as applied to claim 34 above, and further in view of Augenbraun et al (US 2007/0061040).
Modified Zhang et al, as applied above, teaches a robot as claimed except for the specific recitation of surface and carpet sensors, and communication unit(s).
Zhang et al teach the use of sensors, but does not specify the used sensors.
However, the claimed sensors and their use were conventional in the art as evidenced by Augenbraun et al.
Augenbraun et al also evidence that communication stations as claimed were conventional in the art.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the invention was filed to incorporate the conventional features of the cleaning robots, such a carpet sensor, and communication unit(s) for their known functions in the cleaning robot of Zhang et al in order to use known devices for their known functions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/04/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicants amended the claims and allege that the claims are allowable.
This is not persuasive for the reasons provided above.
With respect to claim 34, 48 and the dependent claims the teaching of CN 205054042 has been used that it was known that providing lifting of the wiping unit with respect to the housing when not cleaning prevents secondary pollution. CN 205054042 also teaches returning robot when the wiping unit is dirty. CN 205054042 also teaches a lifting mechanism to lift the wiping unit with respect to the housing. See at least Figures 1-3 and the related description and the description at Invention contents.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the lifting mechanism and its functioning proposed by CN 205054042 in the robot/method of Zhang et al in order to avoid secondary pollution.
With respect to claim 51 and the dependent claims the applicants allege that Zhang et al do not teach the newly introduced limitations requiring “when the maintenance condition is met, change a contact state between the wiping unit and the working surface located outside a base station to a state of not contacting the working surface, and maintain the state of not contacting the working surface in an entire process during which the cleaning robot moves from the work execution position to the maintenance position”.
This is not persuasive.
Zhang et al teach the argued limitation at least at [0158-160], [0185] and Figures 21-22.
Zhang et al clearly teach that the wiping unit is raised with respect to the working surface (floor) and is out of contact with the floor the entire time the robot moves from the time the wiping unit is raised from the floor to the time the robot is at the base station.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER MARKOFF whose telephone number is (571)272-1304. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Michael Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
/ALEXANDER MARKOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights