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 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) 34-35, 37-38, 40, 45, 48-49, 51 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) 46-47 and 52-53 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 CN 205054042, as applied to claims 34 and 51 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 03/03/2026 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.
The applicants attack the applied documents individually.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The Office clearly indicated that Zhang et al teach controlling the cleaning operation performed by the robot, switching from cleaning surfaces to the maintenance state of charging the battery, when required, and/or cleaning wiping/moping members, lifting, state switching, etc.
The Office has also indicated that CN 205054042 teaches that it was known that providing lifting of the wiping unit with respect to the housing when not cleaning prevents secondary pollution; that CN 205054042 also teaches returning robot when the wiping unit is dirty; and that CN 205054042 also teaches a lifting mechanism to lift the wiping unit with respect to the housing. The Office cited Figures 1-3 and the related description and the description at Invention contents.
The Office also clearly indicated that 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.
Thus, in contrast to the applicants’ allegation the amended claims are obvious over the teaching of Zhang et al and CN 205054042.
Please, note that CN 205054042 not only teaches lifting the wiping unit with respect to the housing of the returning robot, but also provides an explanation that such allows to avoid secondary pollution. Thus, CN 205054042 not only teaches that what the applicants allege as new and unobvious was known in the art, but also provides a motivation to incorporate such in the known robots.
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.
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 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