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 Amendments
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments. The prior rejection is withdrawn, new rejections are set forth herein.
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.
Claim 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (US 2018/0199776) in view of Johnson et al. (US 2020/0069139) in view of Jung (US 2012/0013907) in view of Zhang (US 2020/0077858).
Regarding Claim 1, Sato discloses or teaches a base (fig. 5, indicated by item 22), the base including a support (fig. 5, indicated by item 21) and a suction housing (fig. 5, indicated by item 71); a docking station suction inlet (fig. 5, indicated by item 25) defined in the suction housing, the docking station suction inlet being configured to fluidly couple to the robotic cleaner (fig. 9); and a docking station suction motor (fig. 5, indicated by item 69); and a plurality of charging contacts (fig. 5, indicated by items 3) configured to electrically couple with the robotic cleaner to provide power to the robotic cleaner, a standby mode in which the plurality of charging contacts provide power to the robotic cleaner (para. [0026,0053] standby mode or charging mode).
Sato does not explicitly state or show different modes for the docking station and that the robotic cleaner is not charged during the evacuation mode AND a duration of the evacuation mode corresponds to a combined evacuation state duration of the robotic cleaner consisting of a first duration of a first evacuation state and a second duration of a second evacuation state, the first and second durations being different and the first and second evacuation states corresponding to different behaviors of the robotic cleaner, the second evacuation state commencing after expiry of the first duration of the first evacuation state.
Johnson teaches a standby mode in which the plurality of charging contacts provide power to the robotic cleaner (para. [0026,0053] standby mode or charging mode) and the docking station suction motor is deactivated (para. [0082], If the user selects setting 908, the robot 102 does not automatically empty the bin 124, meaning that the user 402 must initiate an evacuation of the robot 102 at the evacuation station (e.g., by a button on the robot or a selectable button in the mobile application 110 on the mobile device 104), thus the standby mode and control of evacuation can be controlled by two different inputs); an initial off dock mode in which a robot absent timer (para. [0082], the robot operates under a smart empty protocol, wherein the robot determines when to automatically empty the bin at the evacuation station based on one or more conditions being satisfied. This determination can be made based on sensor data obtained on the robot such as a bin fullness reading, navigation data, an amount of time cleaned (e.g., do not empty if the robot has been cleaning for less than a certain amount of time). demonstrates the use of a timer for when to empty) is initiated in response to determining the robotic cleaner has left the docking station; and an evacuation mode in which the docking station suction motor is activated in response to a triggering event (para. [0052 and 82]); wherein: when the robotic cleaner docks with the docking station prior to expiration of the robot absent timer, the docking station transitions from the initial off dock mode to the standby mode (para. [0082], if timer has not reached set limit, then no evacuation); and when the robotic cleaner docks with the docking station after expiration of the robot absent timer, the docking station transitions from the initial off dock mode to the evacuation mode, wherein the docking station suction motor is activated after the robotic cleaner is determined to be docked with the docking station and in response to a triggering event (para. [0082], event can be anything from a timer to user manual activation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the docking station in Sato with programable modes as in Johnson, because having multiple modes for the docking station ensures that the robot vacuum is only empty when it needs to be and thus not wasting time and energy activation the suction motor of the docking station.
Jung teaches a robot cleaner wherein a duration of the evacuation mode corresponds to a collective duration of a first evacuation state and a second evacuation state of the robotic cleaner, the first and second evacuation states having different durations and corresponding to different behaviors of the robotic cleaner, the second evacuation state commencing after completion of the first evacuation state (Paragraphs 190-192). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modify the evacuation operation with the teachings of Jung. Jung further discusses in Paragraphs 190-192 that the rotation of the brush motor increases the amount of dust/debris in the robot to be moved to the docking station and that several reversals of direction help unwind debris, such as hair, that can get caught in the brush roll.
Zhang teaches a robot cleaner wherein the first duration of the first evacuation state and a second duration of that second evacuation state are different, and the second evacuation state commencing after expiry of the first duration of the first evacuation state (Paragraph 132). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the duration in which the agitator rotates to be different from a first direction to a second direction. This arrangement helps to gather any debris located on the agitator (Zhang Paragraph 132). Further in the instant application, there is no criticality in the different time durations.
Regarding Claim 2, Sato does not explicitly state or show the triggering event is an expiration of a predetermined time period. However, Johnson teaches the triggering event is an expiration of a predetermined time period (para. [0082], event can be anything from a timer to user manual activation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the docking station in Sato with the triggering event is an expiration of a predetermined time period as in Johnson, because having multiple options to establish the triggering event to empty the robot gives the user options for more control over the cleaning process.
Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (US 2018/0199776) in view of Johnson et al. (US 2020/0069139) in view of Jung (US 20120013907) in view of Zhang (US 2020/0077858) and further view of Conrad (US 2021/0330168).
Regarding Claim 3, Sato as modified by Johnson does not explicitly state or show a synchronization signal, the synchronization signal being an optical signal generated by the docking station in response to determining the robotic cleaner is docked with the docking.
However, Conrad teaches a synchronization signal, the synchronization signal being an optical signal generated by the docking station in response to determining the robotic cleaner is docked with the docking (para. [0237] optical sensor that detects when robotic vacuum cleaner docks to the docking station). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the docking station in Sato as modified by Johnson with a synchronization signal, the synchronization signal being an optical signal generated by the docking station in response to determining the robotic cleaner is docked with the docking as in Conrad, because having a signal generated when the robot cleaner is docked ensures that docking station suction does not start prematurely.
Regarding Claim 6, Sato as modified by Johnson does not explicitly state or show a synchronization signal, the synchronization signal being an optical signal generated by the docking station in response to determining the robotic cleaner is docked with the docking. However, Conrad teaches a synchronization signal, the synchronization signal being an optical signal generated by the docking station in response to determining the robotic cleaner is docked with the docking (para. [0237] optical sensor that detects when robotic vacuum cleaner docks to the docking station). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the docking station in Sato as modified by Johnson with a synchronization signal, the synchronization signal being an optical signal generated by the docking station in response to determining the robotic cleaner is docked with the docking as in Conrad, because having a signal generated when the robot cleaner is docked ensures that docking station suction does not start prematurely.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (US 2018/0199776) in view of Johnson et al. (US 2020/0069139) in view of Jung (US 20120013907) in view of Zhang (US 2020/0077858) further view of Janzen et al. (US 2016/0278596).
Regarding Claim 4, Sato as modified by Johnson does not explicitly state or show the docking station suction motor is activated for a predetermined time. However, Janzen teaches the docking station suction motor is activated for a predetermined time (para. [0071]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the suction motor in Sato as modified by Johnson with docking station suction motor is activated for a predetermined time as in Janzen, because having the docking station suction motor activated for a predetermined time allows the user to set the duration of the suction motor to not run for long durations which will prevent disturbing the user.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (US 2018/0199776) in view of Johnson et al. (US 2020/0069139) in view of Jung (US 20120013907) in view of Zhang (US 2020/0077858) in view of Gagnon et al. (US 2018/0078107).
Regarding Claim 5, Sato as modified does not explicitly state or show the docking station suction motor is deactivated before expiration of a predetermined time in response to determining an evacuation pivot door of a robotic cleaner dust cup is in a closed position. However, Gagnon teaches the docking station suction motor is deactivated before expiration of a predetermined time in response to determining an evacuation pivot door of a robotic cleaner dust cup is in a closed position (para. [0034-0035]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the docking station suction motor process in Sato as modified by Johnson with the docking station suction motor is deactivated before expiration of a predetermined time in response to determining an evacuation pivot door of a robotic cleaner dust cup is in a closed position as in Gagnon, because having the docking station suction motor is deactivated before expiration of a predetermined time in response to determining an evacuation pivot door of a robotic cleaner dust cup is in a closed position which would trigger a pressure switch and deactivate the docking station upon the detection of the change in pressure from the closing of the door.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (US 2018/0199776) in view of Johnson et al. (US 2020/0069139) in view of Jung (US 20120013907) in view of Zhang (US 2020/0077858) in view of Kuhe et al. (US 2012/0291809).
Regarding Claim 7, Sato as modified by Johnson does not explicitly state or show the docking station is configured to generate a function signal in response to determining an evacuation pivot door of a robotic cleaner dust cup is an open position. However, Kuhe teaches the docking station is configured to generate a function signal in response to determining an evacuation pivot door of a robotic cleaner dust cup is an open position (fig. 8B, para. [0056] when door is open it sends a signal to the station to start the suction). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add to the docking station as in Sato as modified by Johnson with the docking station configured to generate a function signal in response to determining an evacuation pivot door of a robotic cleaner dust cup is an open position as in Kuhe, because it would prevent the docking station suction motor from burning out when the door is closed.
Claims 8-11, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrad (US 2021/0330168) in view of Johnson et al. (US 2020/0069139) in view of Jung (US 2012/0013907) in view of Zhang (US 2020/0077858)..
Regarding Claim 8, Conrad discloses or teaches a robotic cleaner (fig. 3, item 104) configured to dock with a docking station (fig. 2, item 108) comprising: a robotic cleaner dust cup (fig. 3, item 176) configured to receive debris, the robotic cleaner dust cup including a robotic cleaner dust cup inlet (fig. 3, item 188) and an outlet port (fig. 3, item 168), the outlet port configured to fluidly couple to the docking station; a robotic cleaner suction motor (fig. 3, located above the indication line for item 196) being configured to operate in a suction motor forward direction (para. [0053], the direction can be reversed so it has to rotate in a forward direction) and a suction motor reverse direction (para. [0053]) ; and an agitator (fig. 3, item 172), the agitator being configured to rotate in an agitator forward direction (fig. 3, item 172, para. [0210] which rotates).
Conrad does not explicitly state or show that the agitator can rotate in a reverse direction.
However, Jung teaches the agitator can rotate in both directions (para. [0198-199]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the agitator in Conrad to rotate in a second direction as in Jung, because agitator rotate in two directions in order to assist the dust removal from the robot dust bin into the docking station (para. [0199]).
Conrad does not explicitly state or show different modes for the docking station and that the robotic cleaner is not charged during the evacuation mode.
However, Johnson teaches a standby mode in which the plurality of charging contacts provide power to the robotic cleaner (para. [0026,0053] standby mode or charging mode) and the docking station suction motor is deactivated (Johnson et al. (US 2020/0069139) para. [0082], If the user selects setting 908, the robot 102 does not automatically empty the bin 124, meaning that the user 402 must initiate an evacuation of the robot 102 at the evacuation station (e.g., by a button on the robot or a selectable button in the mobile application 110 on the mobile device 104), thus the standby mode and control of evacuation can be controlled by two different inputs); an initial off dock mode in which a robot absent timer (para. [0082]), the robot operates under a smart empty protocol, wherein the robot determines when to automatically empty the bin at the evacuation station based on one or more conditions being satisfied. This determination can be made based on sensor data obtained on the robot such as a bin fullness reading, navigation data, an amount of time cleaned (e.g., do not empty if the robot has been cleaning for less than a certain amount of time). Demonstrates the use of a timer for when to empty) is initiated in response to determining the robotic cleaner has left the docking station; and an evacuation mode in which the docking station suction motor is activated in response to a triggering event (para. [0082]) and the plurality of charging contacts do not provide power to the robotic cleaner (para. [0052]); wherein: when the robotic cleaner docks with the docking station prior to expiration of the robot absent timer, the docking station transitions from the initial off dock mode to the standby mode (para. [0082], if timer has not reached set limit, then no evacuation); and when the robotic cleaner docks with the docking station after expiration of the robot absent timer, the docking station transitions from the initial off dock mode to the evacuation mode, wherein the docking station suction motor is activated after the robotic cleaner is determined to be docked with the docking station and in response to a triggering event (para. [0082], event can be anything from a timer to user manual activation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the docking station in Conrad with programable modes as in Johnson, because having multiple modes for the docking station ensures that the robot vacuum is only empty when it needs to be and thus not wasting time and energy activation the suction motor of the docking station.
Conrad fails to explicitly disclose wherein the evacuation mode includes: a first evacuation state having a first duration in which the agitator is caused to rotate and the suction motor is caused to operate; and a second evacuation state having a second duration that is different from the first duration, the second evacuation state being different from the first evacuation state the second evacuation state after completion expiry of the first duration of the first evacuation state wherein a combined evacuation state duration of the robot evacuation mode consisting of the first duration and the second duration corresponds to a duration of the dock evacuation mode.
Jung teaches a robot cleaner wherein a duration of the evacuation mode corresponds to a collective duration of a first evacuation state and a second evacuation state of the robotic cleaner, the first and second evacuation states having different durations and corresponding to different behaviors of the robotic cleaner, the second evacuation state commencing after completion of the first evacuation state (Paragraphs 190-192). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modify the evacuation operation with the teachings of Jung. Jung further discusses in Paragraphs 190-192 that the rotation of the brush motor increases the amount of dust/debris in the robot to be moved to the docking station and that several reversals of direction help unwind debris, such as hair, that can get caught in the brush roll.
Zhang teaches a robot cleaner wherein the first duration of the first evacuation state and a second duration of that second evacuation state are different, and the second evacuation state commencing after expiry of the first duration of the first evacuation state (Paragraph 132). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the duration in which the agitator rotates to be different from a first direction to a second direction. This arrangement helps to gather any debris located on the agitator (Zhang Paragraph 132). Further in the instant application, there is no criticality in the different time durations.
Regarding Claim 9, Conrad discloses or teaches the robotic cleaner suction motor is caused to operate in the suction motor reverse direction (para. [0053]).
Regarding Claim 10, Conrad does not explicitly state or show that the agitator is caused to rotate in the agitator reverse direction. However, Jung teaches the agitator is caused to rotate in the agitator reverse direction (para. [0198-199]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the agitator in Conrad to cause to rotate in the agitator reverse as in Jung, because having the agitator reverse direction allows the agitator to assist the dust removal from the robot dust bin into the docking station (para. [0199]).
Regarding Claim 11, Conrad does not explicitly state or show that the agitator rotates in two directions. However, Jung teaches the agitator rotates in two directions (para. [0198-199]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the agitator in Conrad to cause the agitator rotates in two directions as in Jung, because having the agitator rotates in two directions allows the agitator to assist the dust removal from the robot dust bin into the docking station while also cleaning off the sweeper (para. [0199]).
Regarding Claim 13, Conrad discloses or teaches the robotic cleaner suction motor is caused to operate in the suction motor reverse direction in response to receiving a function signal from the docking station (para. [0053], It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the suction motor could be reversed based on a signal that it was docked with the docking station).
Regarding Claim 14, Conrad does not explicitly state or show that the agitator is caused to rotate in the agitator reverse direction in response to a signal from the docking station. However, Jung teaches the agitator is caused to rotate in the agitator reverse direction in response to the docking station (para. [0198-199]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the agitator in Conrad to cause to rotate in the agitator reverse by the docking station as in Jung, because having the agitator reverse direction by the docking station will allow the agitator to assist the dust removal from the robot dust bin into the docking station (para. [0199]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrad (US 2021/0330168) in view of Johnson et al. (US 2020/0069139) in view of Jung (US 20120013907) in view of Zhang (US 2020/0077858) in view of Jung et al. (US 2013/0056026), hereinafter Jung2.
Regarding Claim 12, Conrad discloses or teaches a rib to engage the agitator (fig. 3, above item 188 the protrusion that engages the agitator item 172 at the eleven o’clock).
Conrad as modified by Johnson and Jung does not explicitly state or show a plurality of teeth on the rib. However, Jung2 teaches teeth on the rib (fig. 4, item 42a). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add to the protrusion in Johnson and Jung with teeth as in Jung2, because having teeth in the protrusion would allow for better clean between the sweeper bristles.
Claim 15, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (US 2018/0199776) in view of Johnson et al. (US 2020/0069139) in view of Conrad (US 2021/0330168) in view of Jung (US 20120013907) in view of Zhang (US 2020/0077858).
Regarding Claim 15, Sato discloses or teaches a base (fig. 5, indicated by item 22), the base including a support (fig. 5, indicated by item 21) and a suction housing (fig. 5, indicated by item 71); a docking station suction inlet (fig. 5, indicated by item 25) defined in the suction housing, and a docking station suction motor (fig. 5, indicated by item 69); robotic cleaner (fig. 3, indicated by item 2), robotic cleaner dust cup (fig. 4, indicated by item 12), dust cup inlet port (fig. 2, indicated by arrow from item 6 to item 12, para. [0029-0030]), dust cup outlet port (fig. 9, area between item 41 and C4), robot cleaner suction motor (fig. 3, item 13), and an agitator (fig. 4, item 31).
Sato does not explicitly state or show the triggering event and that the robotic cleaner is not powered during the docking station suction motor is activated. However, Johnson teaches the triggering event (para. [0082], event can be one or more) and the robotic cleaner is not powered during the docking station suction motor is activated (para. [0052]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the docking station in Sato with the triggering event is an expiration of a predetermined time period as in Johnson, because having multiple options to establish the triggering event to empty the robot gives the user options for more control over the cleaning process.
Sato does not explicitly state or show a synchronization signal, the synchronization signal being an optical signal generated by the docking station in response to determining the robotic cleaner is docked with the docking. However, Conrad teaches a synchronization signal, the synchronization signal being an optical signal generated by the docking station in response to determining the robotic cleaner is docked with the docking (para. [0237] optical sensor that detects when robotic vacuum cleaner docks to the docking station). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the docking station in Sato as modified by Johnson with a synchronization signal, the synchronization signal being an optical signal generated by the docking station in response to determining the robotic cleaner is docked with the docking as in Conrad, because having a signal generated when the robot cleaner is docked ensures that docking station suction does not start prematurely.
Sato does not state the suction motor operates in forward and reverse direction. However, Conrad teaches a robotic cleaner suction motor (fig. 3, located above the indication line for item 196) being configured to operate in a suction motor forward direction (para. [0053], the direction can be reversed so it has to rotate in a forward direction) and a suction motor reverse direction (para. [0053]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the suction motor in Sato with a suction motor operates in forward and reverse direction as in Conrad, because suction motor operating in two directions would assist the dust removal from the robot dust bin into the docking station.
Sato does not explicitly state or show that the agitator can rotate in a reverse direction. However, Jung teaches the agitator can rotate in both directions (para. [0198-199]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the agitator in Sato to rotate in a second direction as in Jung, because agitator rotate in two directions in order to assist the dust removal from the robot dust bin into the docking station (para. [0199]).
Sato fails to explicitly disclose the robotic cleaner is configured to operate according to a robot evacuation mode when docked with the docking station, the robot evacuation mode includes: a first evacuation state having a first duration in which the agitator is caused to rotate and the suction motor is caused to operate; and a second evacuation state having a second duration that is different from the first duration, the second evacuation state being different from the first evacuation state, wherein the second evacuation state after completion expiry of the first duration of the first evacuation state wherein a combined evacuation state duration of the robot evacuation mode consisting of the first duration and the second duration corresponds to a duration of the dock evacuation mode.
Jung teaches a robot cleaner wherein a duration of the evacuation mode corresponds to a collective duration of a first evacuation state and a second evacuation state of the robotic cleaner, the first and second evacuation states having different durations and corresponding to different behaviors of the robotic cleaner, the second evacuation state commencing after completion of the first evacuation state (Paragraphs 190-192). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modify the evacuation operation with the teachings of Jung. Jung further discusses in Paragraphs 190-192 that the rotation of the brush motor increases the amount of dust/debris in the robot to be moved to the docking station and that several reversals of direction help unwind debris, such as hair, that can get caught in the brush roll.
Zhang teaches a robot cleaner wherein the first duration of the first evacuation state and a second duration of that second evacuation state are different, and the second evacuation state commencing after expiry of the first duration of the first evacuation state (Paragraph 132). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the duration in which the agitator rotates to be different from a first direction to a second direction. This arrangement helps to gather any debris located on the agitator (Zhang Paragraph 132). Further in the instant application, there is no criticality in the different time durations.
Regarding Claim 18, Sato does not state the suction motor operates in reverse direction in response to a signal from the docking station. However, Conrad teaches a robotic cleaner suction motor (fig. 3, located above the indication line for item 196) being configured to operate in a suction motor reverse direction (para. [0053]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the suction motor in Sato with a suction motor operates in forward and reverse direction as in Conrad, because suction motor operating in two directions would assist the dust removal from the robot dust bin into the docking station.
Regarding Claim 19, Sato does not explicitly state or show that the agitator is caused to rotate in the agitator reverse direction in response to a signal from the docking station. However, Jung teaches the agitator is caused to rotate in the agitator reverse direction in response to the docking station (para. [0198-199]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the agitator in Conrad to cause to rotate in the agitator reverse by the docking station as in Jung, because having the agitator reverse direction by the docking station will allow the agitator to assist the dust removal from the robot dust bin into the docking station (para. [0199]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (US 2018/0199776) in view of Johnson et al. (US 2020/0069139) in view of Conrad (US 2021/0330168) in view of Jung (US 20120013907) in view of Kuhe (US 2012/0291809).
Regarding Claim 17, Sato as modified by Johnson, Conrad, and Jung does not explicitly state or show the docking station is configured to generate a function signal in response to determining an evacuation pivot door of a robotic cleaner dust cup is an open position. However, Kuhe teaches the docking station is configured to generate a function signal in response to determining an evacuation pivot door of a robotic cleaner dust cup is an open position (fig. 8B, para. [0056] when door is open it sends a signal to the station to start the suction). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add to the docking station as in Sato as modified by Johnson, Conrad, and Jung with the docking station configured to generate a function signal in response to determining an evacuation pivot door of a robotic cleaner dust cup is an open position as in Kuhe since it would prevent the docking station suction motor from burning out.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (US 2018/0199776) in view of Johnson et al. (US 2020/0069139) in view of Conrad (US 2021/0330168) in view of Jung (US 20120013907) in view of Jung et al. (US 2013/0056026), hereinafter Jung2.
Regarding Claim 20, Sato does not explicitly state or show a rib. However, Conrad discloses or teaches a rib to engage the agitator (fig. 3, above item 188 the protrusion that engages the agitator item 172 at the eleven o’clock). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add to the docking station in Sato with a rib as in Conrad, because having a rib would allow for better clean between the sweeper bristles.
Sato as modified by Johnson, Conrad, and Jung does not explicitly state or show a plurality of teeth on the rib. However, Jung2 teaches teeth on the rib (fig. 4, item 42a). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add to the protrusion in Sato as modified by Johnson, Conrad, and Jung with teeth as in Jung2, because having teeth in the protrusion would allow for better clean between the sweeper bristles.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (US 2018/0199776) in view of Johnson et al. (US 2020/0069139) in view of Conrad (US 2021/0330168) in view of Jung (US 20120013907) as applied to claim 15.
Regarding Claim 21, Sato discloses or teaches a plurality of charging contacts (fig. 5, indicated by items 3) configured to electrically couple with the robotic cleaner to provide power to the robotic cleaner, a standby mode in which the plurality of charging contacts provide power to the robotic cleaner (para. [0026,0053] standby mode or charging mode).
Sato does not explicitly state or show that the agitator can rotate in a reverse direction. However, Jung teaches the agitator can rotate in both directions (para. [0198-199]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the agitator in Sato to rotate in a second direction as in Jung, because agitator rotate in two directions in order to assist the dust removal from the robot dust bin into the docking station (para. [0199]).
Sato does not explicitly state or show different modes for the docking station and that the robotic cleaner is not charged during the evacuation mode. However, Johnson teaches a standby mode in which the plurality of charging contacts provide power to the robotic cleaner (para. [0026,0053] standby mode or charging mode) and the docking station suction motor is deactivated (Johnson et al. (US 2020/0069139) para. [0082], If the user selects setting 908, the robot 102 does not automatically empty the bin 124, meaning that the user 402 must initiate an evacuation of the robot 102 at the evacuation station (e.g., by a button on the robot or a selectable button in the mobile application 110 on the mobile device 104), thus the standby mode and control of evacuation can be controlled by two different inputs); an initial off dock mode in which a robot absent timer (para. [0082], the robot operates under a smart empty protocol, wherein the robot determines when to automatically empty the bin at the evacuation station based on one or more conditions being satisfied. This determination can be made based on sensor data obtained on the robot such as a bin fullness reading, navigation data, an amount of time cleaned (e.g., do not empty if the robot has been cleaning for less than a certain amount of time). Demonstrates the use of a timer for when to empty) is initiated in response to determining the robotic cleaner has left the docking station; and an evacuation mode in which the docking station suction motor is activated in response to a triggering event (para. [0082]) and the plurality of charging contacts do not provide power to the robotic cleaner (para. [0052]); wherein: when the robotic cleaner docks with the docking station prior to expiration of the robot absent timer, the docking station transitions from the initial off dock mode to the standby mode (para. [0082], if timer has not reached set limit, then no evacuation); and when the robotic cleaner docks with the docking station after expiration of the robot absent timer, the docking station transitions from the initial off dock mode to the evacuation mode, wherein the docking station suction motor is activated after the robotic cleaner is determined to be docked with the docking station and in response to a triggering event (para. [0082], event can be anything from a timer to user manual activation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the docking station in Sato with programable modes as in Johnson, because having multiple modes for the docking station ensures that the robot vacuum is only empty when it needs to be and thus not wasting time and energy activation the suction motor of the docking station.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/30/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Zhang (US 2020/0077858).
Applicant argues the prior art does not disclose “a duration of the evacuation mode corresponds to a combined evacuation state duration of the robotic cleaner consisting of a first duration of a first evacuation state and a second duration of a second evacuation state. The use of “first evacuation state” and “second evacuation state” is interpreted broadly. The Examiner interprets a first rotational direction as the first evacuation state, and the second direction as the second evacuation state. The claim does not limit the first evacuation state to start a second time. Further, the example of the time duration in paragraph 246 of the instant application is an example of an operation, not the operational directions.
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 TOM R RODGERS whose telephone number is (313)446-4849. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8AM-5PM EST.
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, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. 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.
/TOM RODGERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723