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 .
Response to Amendment
1. Amendments filed 9/2/2025 have been entered, wherein claims 1-15 and 21-24 are pending. Accordingly, claims 1-15 and 21-24 have been examined herein. The previous claim objections and 35 USC 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments. This action is Final.
Claim Objections
2. Claims 1 and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 10, “an inverted U-shaped defined a top edge” should read “an inverted U-shaped [[defined]] defining a top edge” to promote increased clarity
Claim 22, “upwardly from the bottom edge and” should read “upwardly from the bottom edge of the sidewall and” to provide increased clarity and avoid the antecedent basis issue.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
Claim 3 is 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 3, the language recites “extends across an upper edge of the rear opening”. However, claim 1 previously requires the rear opening to have a top edge. Therefore, it is not precisely clear if the “upper edge” of claim 3 is different from or the same as the “top edge” of claim 1. Specifically, the term “an upper edge” lacks proper antecedent basis. For purposes of examination, as best understood by the examiner, the limitation will be interpreted as “extends across [[an upper edge]] the top edge of the rear opening”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
Claims 1-8, 10-15 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arakawa (US PGPUB 20160347599) in view of Arakawa (US PGPUB 20160331202), hereinafter Arakawa ‘202, and further in view of Keiler III (US PGPUB 20190357747), hereinafter Keiler, and further in view of Henry (US Patent 6878881).
Regarding claim 1, Arakawa teaches a cover (dispenser tray 4, figs. 1-2) for a robotic floor cleaner (cleaning robot 2) and charging station assembly (fig. 2, charging station 43 with charging terminals 44 [0049]), the charging station having a base (fig. 3, the base is interpreted as including the structure indicated by element 43) positioned on a floor (fig. 3, floor F), and the robotic floor cleaner being programmed to couple with the charging station for electrical charging of the robotic floor cleaner (fig. 2, [0049]), the cover comprising:
a body (see annotated fig. 3 below) having an exposed flattop surface (see annotated fig. 3 below. The body of Arakawa includes an exposed flattop surface), a side wall to support the body on the floor (see annotated fig. 3 below, wherein the indicated sidewall supports the body on the floor F), and an open bottom (see annotated fig. 3 below);
PNG
media_image1.png
528
830
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a front opening (fig. 1, the space between the support legs 35 is being interpreted as the front opening) through which the robotic floor cleaner enters for connection to the charging station and exits for moving across the floor [0047 and 0049].
Arakawa does not explicitly teach a rear opening extending through the sidewall such that the body is adapted to fit downwardly over the charging station with the base extending through the rear opening into the body,
the rear opening being an inverted U-shape defined a top edge and opposite side edges, and being free of a bottom edge;
and the body being detached from the charging station.
However, Arakawa ‘202 teaches a floor cleaner assembly including a robotic cleaner 4 and a cover (pedestal 6) sized to fit the robotic cleaner (fig. 2). Additionally, Arakawa teaches the cover includes a side panel 32 (interpreted as sidewall) which partially extends around the floor cleaner (figs. 1-4, the side panel partially extends around the floor cleaner). Additionally, Arakawa ‘202 teaches the charging station 37 is received in an opening of the side panel (figs. 1-4, see annotated figs. 3-4 below). Specifically, Arakawa ‘202 teaches a rear opening (as seen in annotated figs. 3-4 below) such that the body is adapted to fit over the charging station (The indicated opening fits over the charging station 37) with the base extending into the body (see annotated figs. 3-4 below, wherein the base of the charging station extends into the body). Additionally, Arakawa ‘202 teaches the charging station 37 and the pedestal 6 are fastened to each other by a fastening means such as bolts [0035].
PNG
media_image2.png
691
678
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Arakawa to incorporate the teachings of Arakawa ‘202 to provide a sidewall extending partially around the floor cleaner and wherein the sidewall has a rear opening such that the body is adapted to fit downwardly over the charging station with the base extending into the body, wherein the charging station is attached to the sidewall via bolts. Specifically, it would have been obvious to modify the sidewall 36 of Arakawa to resemble the sidewall of Arakawa ‘202, wherein the modified sidewall partially extends around the floor cleaner and includes an opening to receive the charging station and wherein the charging station is attached to the sidewall via bolts. Modifying the sidewall of Arakawa to resemble the sidewall of Arakawa ‘202 would promote stability of the apparatus and the holding surface 30 because the sidewall has an expanded footprint (Specifically, the sidewall now partially extends around the cleaner instead of a single pillar 36). Including an opening in the sidewall to receive the charging station (as taught by Arakawa ‘202) would protect the charging station from being damaged which promotes longevity of the charging station. Additionally, providing the opening would ensure the charging station is properly seated to promote successful connection between the charging station and the cleaner. Lastly, attaching the charging station to the sidewall via bolts would ensure the charging station is properly positioned to promote successful connection between the charging station and the cleaner.
In summary, Arakawa, as modified, teaches a rear opening (as incorporated form Arakawa ‘202) such that the body is adapted to fit downwardly over the charging station (fig. 3 of Arakawa, the sidewall now has an opening to receive the charging station, wherein the opening fits downwardly over the charging station) with the base extending into the body (fig. 3 of Arakawa, the base of the charging station of Arakawa extends into the body of Arakawa because the body now has a recess to receive the base of the charging station).
Arakawa, as modified, teaches wherein the charging station is positioned with respect to the sidewall via bolts (as incorporated from Arakawa ‘202).
Arakawa, as modified, does not explicitly teach a rear opening extending through the sidewall such that the body is adapted to fit downwardly over the charging station with the base extending through the rear opening into the body,
the rear opening being an inverted U-shape defined a top edge and opposite side edges, and being free of a bottom edge;
and the body being detached from the charging station.
However, Keiler teaches a docking assembly for robotic vacuums including a charging base (fig. 4), wherein the charging station has the base upon which the robotic floor cleaner sits (fig. 4, wherein the flatter section is interpreted as the base). Additionally, Keiler teaches the base 114 includes an aperture 132 that extends into the base and is shaped to accommodate the charging station 106 [0030]. Keiler also teaches the aperture 132 may be sized so as to provide a stable and snug fit (paragraph 0035, fig. 5c) between the charging station and the base 114. Overall, Keiler teaches a positioning means which includes a precisely sized recess to provide a stable and snug fit between the charging station and the base 114, wherein the base 114 is detached from the charging station (Because the charging station is only snugly fit into the recess of the base 114, the charging station remains detached from the base 114 while also being precisely positioned with respect to the base 114).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Arakawa, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Keiler to provide wherein the charging station (of Arakawa) is positioned with respect to the sidewall (of Arakawa, as modified) via a precisely shaped recess that provides a stable and snug fit between the charging station and the sidewall. Specifically, it would have been obvious to replace the positioning means of Arakawa, as modified, (bolts) with the positioning means of Keiler (precisely sized and shaped recess to provide a stable and snug fit). Doing so would have been a simple substitution (MPEP 2143) of one known positioning means for another known positioning means in order to obtain the predictable results of positioning the charging station with respect to the cover. Additionally, doing so would allow the charging station to be easily removed for repairs and maintenance.
In summary, Arakawa, as modified, teaches the body being detached from the charging station (Arakawa, as modified, teaches the charging station is positioned with respect to the body via a precisely sized and shaped recess which provides a stable and snug fit between the charging station and body (as incorporated from Keiler above). Because the charging station is only snugly fit into the body, the body remains detached from the charging station while precisely positioning the charging station with respect to the body).
Arakawa, as modified, teaches wherein the power cord 62 (of Arakawa) extends through the sidewall (fig. 2). However, Arakawa, as modified, does not explicitly teach a through opening.
Specifically, Arakawa, as modified, does not explicitly teach a rear opening extending through the sidewall such that the body is adapted to fit downwardly over the charging station with the base extending through the rear opening into the body,
the rear opening being an inverted U-shape defined a top edge and opposite side edges, and being free of a bottom edge.
However, Henry teaches a modular cable protector assembly which qualifies as pertinent prior art as being pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Specifically, the inventor highlights the problem of not being aesthetically pleasing and therefore their visible location in a room creates an unattractive or unsightly problem (last paragraph on page 1 of the instant specification). Henry is pertinent to this problem as Henry teaches a device for covering cables/cords. Specifically, Henry teaches a modular cable protector assembly wherein the assembly can cover and protect the cables (figs. 3-5). That is, Henry teaches an opening extending through the sidewall (figs. 3-5, tunnel member 20a is interpreted as an opening extending through the sidewall), the opening being an inverted U-shape defined a top edge and opposite side edges, and being free of a bottom edge (fig. 5, the tunnel member 20a is an opening being in an inverted U-shape defining a top edge and opposite side edges, and being free of a bottom edge).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Arakawa, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Henry to provide a rear opening extending through the sidewall such that the body is adapted to fit downwardly over the charging station with the base extending through the rear opening into the body, the rear opening being an inverted U-shape defined a top edge and opposite side edges, and being free of a bottom edge. Specifically, it would have been obvious to include an inverted U-shape cord opening (as taught by Henry) which provides a through opening through the bottom of the sidewall of Arakawa, as modified, wherein the power cord 62 of Arakawa is passed through the cord opening to the power source. Incorporating the cord opening for the power cord would prevent damage to the power cord and also promote organization of the cords. Incorporating the cord opening would also allow the cord to pass through the wall as intended and depicted by fig. 3 of Arakawa.
In summary, Arakawa, as modified, teaches a rear opening extending through the sidewall (the incorporated cord opening of Henry extends through the sidewall) such that the body is adapted to fit downwardly over the charging station (fig. 3 of Arakawa, the sidewall now has an opening to receive the charging station (as incorporated from Arakawa ‘202), wherein the opening fits downwardly over the charging station) with the base extending through the rear opening into the body (the base of Arakawa is interpreted as including the power cord 62 of Arakawa. The power cord extends through the rear opening as incorporated from Henry. Therefore, the base extends through the rear opening into the body),
the rear opening being an inverted U-shape defined a top edge and opposite side edges, and being free of a bottom edge (see above combination, wherein the inverted U-shape opening of Henry was incorporated. Therefore, part of the rear opening is an inverted U-shape defining a top edge and opposite side edges, and being free of a bottom edge).
Regarding claim 2, Arakawa, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Arakawa, as modified, teaches wherein the top surface is circular (fig. 4 of Arakawa, the top surface (as interpreted above) is circular.).
Regarding claim 3, Arakawa, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Arakawa, as modified, teaches wherein the sidewall extends across an upper edge of the rear opening (figs. 3-4 of Arakawa ‘202; The sidewall (as modified above in claim 1 to resemble the sidewall of Arakawa ‘202) extends across an upper edge of the rear opening).
Regarding claim 4, Arakawa, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Arakawa, as modified, teaches wherein the front opening extends to a same height as the sidewall (fig. 3 of Arakawa, the front opening and the sidewall (as modified) both extend to a lower surface of the top of the body. Specifically, both the sidewall and the front opening extend to a bottom surface which is opposite to the top surface).
Regarding claim 5, Arakawa, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Arakawa, as modified, teaches wherein the sidewall extends to a table height (fig. 3 of Arakawa, the sidewall extends up to the bottom surface of the top of the body, wherein the bottom surface is opposite to the top surface. The extension of the sidewall is being interpreted as a table height) and the top surface (fig. 3 of Arakawa, as interpreted above in claim 1) forms a table top upon which objects can be set (figs. 2-3. Additionally, the previously interpreted top surface forms a table top upon which it is capable of receiving objects).
Regarding claim 6, Arakawa, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Arakawa, as modified, teaches wherein the sidewall has sufficient strength to support an object placed on the top surface (figs. 2-3 of Arakawa).
Regarding claim 7, Arakawa, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Arakawa, as modified, teaches wherein the cover resides above the base (fig. 3 of Arakawa) so as to substantially hide the robotic floor cleaner when the robotic floor cleaner is positioned on the base of the charging station (figs. 1-5 of Arakawa).
Regarding claim 8, Arakawa, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Arakawa, as modified, teaches wherein the body has a shape corresponding to a shape of the robotic floor cleaner (figs. 4-5 of Arakawa, both the body and the robotic floor cleaner have a circular shape).
Regarding claim 10, Arakawa, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Arakawa, as modified, teaches wherein the front and rear openings each have a width (see annotated fig. 1 of Arakawa below, wherein the sidewall was modified to incorporate a rear opening to receive the charging station),
PNG
media_image3.png
794
609
media_image3.png
Greyscale
with the front opening width being greater than the rear opening width (see annotated fig. 1 of Arakawa above. The front opening width is greater than the rear opening width).
Regarding claim 11, Arakawa, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Arakawa, as modified, teaches wherein the front and rear openings each have a height (see annotated fig. 1 of Arakawa below, wherein the sidewall was modified to incorporate a rear opening to receive the charging station),
PNG
media_image4.png
672
688
media_image4.png
Greyscale
and the front opening height being greater than the rear opening height (See annotated fig. 1 of Arakawa above, wherein the front opening height is greater than the rear opening height. Specifically, the front opening extends to a height greater than the robotic floor cleaner and the rear opening extends to a height lesser than the robotic floor cleaner).
Regarding claim 12, Arakawa, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Arakawa, as modified, teaches wherein the body has dimensions which permit the robotic floor cleaner to be fully positioned inside the cover (figs. 1-5 of Arakawa).
Regarding claim 13, Arakawa, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Arakawa, as modified, teaches wherein the cover and the robotic floor cleaner each have a diameter (see annotated fig. 5 of Arakawa below), and
PNG
media_image5.png
586
800
media_image5.png
Greyscale
the cover diameter is larger than the diameter of the robotic floor cleaner (see annotated fig. above).
Regarding claim 14, Arakawa, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Arakawa, as modified, teaches wherein the cover is closely spaced to the floor cleaner when the floor cleaner is docked in the charging station (fig. 3 of Arakawa).
Regarding claim 22, Arakawa, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Arakawa, as modified, teaches wherein the sidewall extends downwardly from the top surface (fig. 3 of Arakawa, the sidewall, as modified, extends downwardly from the top surface (as previously interpreted)) and includes a bottom edge to sit upon the floor (fig. 3 of Arakawa, the sidewall includes a bottom edge (structure indicated by element 36 in fig. 3) which sits upon a floor F), and the rear opening extends upwardly from the bottom edge (fig. 3 of Arakawa, wherein the cover was modified to have a precisely sized and shaped recess to receive the charging station. The precisely sized and shaped recess extends upwardly from the bottom edge (as seen in fig. 3 of Arakawa, the recess which would receive the charging station would extend upwardly from the bottom edge)) and has a height shorter than the sidewall (The recess is precisely sized and shaped to fit the charging station, wherein the charging station has a height shorter than the sidewall (fig. 3 of Arakawa)).
Regarding claim 15, Arakawa teaches a floor cleaner assembly (figs. 1-2), comprising:
a robotic cleaner (cleaning robot 2);
a charging station for docking with the robotic cleaner for storage and electrical charging of the floor cleaner (fig. 2, charging station 43 with charging terminals 44 [0049]), the charging station having a housing (see annotated fig. 3 below) and a base adapted to sit upon a floor and extending forwardly from the housing (see annotated fig. 3 below, wherein the base is interpreted as including the indicated structure which is located on floor F);
PNG
media_image6.png
570
831
media_image6.png
Greyscale
a cover (dispenser tray 4, figs. 1-2) removably mounted (Arakawa teaches the charging station is fastened to the support leg 36 by fastening means such as bolts. Therefore, the cover is removably mounted via bolts) over the charging station (fig. 3, the cover is removably mounted over the charging station) and sized to fit over the robotic cleaner when the robotic cleaner is docked in the charging station (fig. 2);
the cover having an open front mouth (fig. 1, the space between the support legs 35 is being interpreted as the open front mouth) through which the robotic cleaner moves to and from the charging station [0047];
the cover having a sidewall to support the cover on the floor (see annotated fig. 3 of Arakawa below, wherein the interpreted sidewall supports the cover on floor F);
PNG
media_image7.png
518
836
media_image7.png
Greyscale
the cover having a top positioned above the robotic cleaner when the robotic cleaner is docked in the charging station (see annotated fig. 3 of Arakawa above); and
the top having a smooth, horizontal, exposed upper surface adapted to removably support an object thereon (see annotated fig. 3 of Arakawa above, the top has a smooth, horizontal, exposed upper surface (as indicated above) adapted to removably support an object thereon).
Arakawa does not explicitly teach
the charging station having electrical contacts in the base for charging the robotic cleaner when the robotic cleaner is docked;
the cover having a sidewall extending partially around the floor cleaner;
a rear opening extending through the sidewall and the sidewall being discontinuous along a bottom portion of the rear opening, whereby the base of the charging station extends upwardly from the floor, through the sidewall and into the rear opening.
However, Arakawa ‘202 teaches a floor cleaner assembly including a robotic cleaner 4 and a cover (pedestal 6) sized to fit the robotic cleaner (fig. 2). Additionally, Arakawa teaches the cover includes a side panel 32 (interpreted as sidewall) which partially extends around the floor cleaner (figs. 1-4, the side panel partially extends around the floor cleaner). Additionally, Arakawa ‘202 teaches the charging station 37 is received in an opening of the side panel (figs. 1-4, see annotated figs. 3-4 below) wherein the rear opening fits over the base of the charging station (see annotated figs. 3-4 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
691
678
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Arakawa to incorporate the teachings of Arakawa ‘202 to provide the cover having a sidewall extending partially around the floor cleaner with a rear opening to fit over the base of the charging station. Specifically, it would have been obvious to modify the sidewall 36 of Arakawa to resemble the sidewall of Arakawa ‘202, wherein the modified sidewall partially extends around the floor cleaner and includes an opening to fit over the base of the charging station. Modifying the sidewall of Arakawa to resemble the sidewall of Arakawa ‘202 would promote stability of the apparatus and the holding surface 30 because the sidewall has an expanded footprint (Specifically, the sidewall now partially extends around the cleaner instead of a single pillar 36). Including an opening in the sidewall to fit over the charging station (as taught by Arakawa ‘202) would protect the charging station from being damaged which promotes longevity of the charging station. Additionally, providing the opening would ensure the charging station is properly seated to promote successful connection between the charging station and the cleaner.
Arakawa, as modified, does not explicitly teach
the charging station having electrical contacts in the base for charging the robotic cleaner when the robotic cleaner is docked;
a rear opening extending through the sidewall and the sidewall being discontinuous along a bottom portion of the rear opening, whereby the base of the charging station extends upwardly from the floor, through the sidewall and into the rear opening.
However, Keiler teaches a docking assembly for robotic vacuums including a charging base (fig. 4), wherein the charging station has the base upon which the robotic floor cleaner sits (fig. 4, wherein the flatter section is interpreted as the base). Overall, Keiler teaches an alternative charging base wherein the robotic floor cleaner sits on the charging base (fig. 5A and paragraph 0034), the charging station having a housing and a base extending forwardly from the housing (see annotated fig. 4 of Keiler below),
PNG
media_image8.png
686
769
media_image8.png
Greyscale
with electrical contacts in the base for charging the robotic cleaner when the robotic cleaner is docked (fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Arakawa, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Keiler to provide the charging station having a housing and a base extending forwardly from the housing, with electrical contacts in the base for charging the robotic cleaner when the robotic cleaner is docked. Specifically, it would have been obvious to substitute Keiler’s charging base for the charging base of Arakawa, as modified. Doing so would have been a simple substitution (MPEP 2143) of one known charging base for another known charging base in order to obtain the predictable results of providing a charging connection to recharge the robotic floor cleaner.
Arakawa, as modified, teaches wherein the power cord 62 (of Arakawa) extends through the sidewall (fig. 2). However, Arakawa, as modified, does not explicitly teach a through hole.
Specifically, Arakawa, as modified, does not explicitly teach
a rear opening extending through the sidewall and the sidewall being discontinuous along a bottom portion of the rear opening, whereby the base of the charging station extends upwardly from the floor, through the sidewall and into the rear opening.
However, Henry teaches a modular cable protector assembly which qualifies as pertinent prior art as being pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Specifically, the inventor highlights the problem of not being aesthetically pleasing and therefore their visible location in a room creates an unattractive or unsightly problem (last paragraph on page 1 of the instant specification). Henry is pertinent to this problem as Henry teaches a device for covering cables/cords. Specifically, Henry teaches a modular cable protector assembly wherein the assembly can cover and protect the cables (figs. 3-5). That is, Henry teaches an opening extending through the sidewall (figs. 3-5, tunnel member 20a is interpreted as an opening extending through the sidewall) and the sidewall being discontinuous along a bottom portion of the opening (fig. 4-5, the sidewall is discontinuous along a bottom portion of the opening).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Arakawa, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Henry to provide a rear opening extending through the sidewall and the sidewall being discontinuous along a bottom portion of the rear opening, whereby the base of the charging station extends upwardly from the floor, through the sidewall and into the rear opening. Specifically, it would have been obvious to include a cord opening (wherein the sidewall is discontinuous along a bottom portion of the rear opening) (as taught by Henry) which provides a through hole through the sidewall of Arakawa, as modified, wherein the power cord 62 of Arakawa is passed through the cord opening to the power source. Incorporating the cord opening for the power cord would prevent damage to the power cord and also promote organization of the cords. Incorporating the cord opening would also allow the cord to pass through the wall as intended and depicted by fig. 3 of Arakawa.
In summary, Arakawa, as modified, teaches a rear opening extending through the sidewall and the sidewall (the incorporated cord opening of Henry extends through the sidewall) being discontinuous along a bottom portion of the rear opening (the incorporated cord opening of Henry is discontinuous along a bottom portion of the rear opening), whereby the base of the charging station extends upwardly from the floor (fig. 3 of Arakawa), through the sidewall (the base of Arakawa is interpreted as including the power cord 62 of Arakawa. The power cord extends through the rear opening as incorporated from Henry. Therefore, base extends through the sidewall) and into the rear opening (The base of Arakawa is interpreted as including the power cord 62 of Arakawa. The power cord extends into the rear opening. Therefore, the base extends into the rear opening).
Regarding claim 23, Arakawa, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 15. Additionally, Arakawa, as modified, teaches wherein the front mouth has a height substantially equal to a height of the sidewall (fig. 3 of Arakawa, the front opening of Arakawa has a height substantially equal to a height of the sidewall).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arakawa (US PGPUB 20160347599) in view of Arakawa (US PGPUB 20160331202), hereinafter Arakawa ‘202, and further in view of Keiler III (US PGPUB 20190357747), hereinafter Keiler, and further in view of Henry (US Patent 6878881), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Graves et al. (US PGPUB 20160242612), hereinafter Graves.
Regarding claim 9, Arakawa, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Arakawa, as modified, teaches the body supports a water dispenser (fig. 2 of Arakawa). Arakawa, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the body is rigid.
However, Graves teaches a floor cleaner system (fig. 3, wherein the system is capable of cleaning floors) also classified in A47L, wherein the floor cleaner system includes a body (fig. 3). Additionally, Graves teaches the body of the floor cleaner system may be constructed from various rigid materials such as metal, plastic, ceramic, composite, or wood [0035].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Arakawa, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Graves to provide wherein the body is made of a rigid metal material. Doing so would promote the longevity of the body (of Arakawa, as modified). Additionally, doing so would promote a steady base to support the water dispenser (of Arakawa).
Claims 21 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arakawa (US PGPUB 20160347599) in view of Arakawa (US PGPUB 20160331202), hereinafter Arakawa ‘202, and further in view of Keiler III (US PGPUB 20190357747), hereinafter Keiler, and further in view of Henry (US Patent 6878881), as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Zheng (US PGPUB 20220304539).
Regarding claim 21, Arakawa, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 15. Arakawa, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the sidewall of the cover extends substantially 180° around the robotic cleaner.
However, Zheng teaches a cleaning base station 10 for a robotic cleaner 90 (fig. 1). Additionally, Zheng teaches wherein the sidewall of the cover extends substantially 180° around the robotic cleaner (see fig. 1 of Zheng).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Arakawa, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Zheng to provide wherein the sidewall of the cover extends substantially 180° around the robotic cleaner. Specifically, it would have been obvious to modify the sidewall of Arakawa, as modified, to extend further around the robotic cleaner. Doing so would protect the robotic cleaner from inadvertent contact while the robotic cleaner is docked which promotes consistent charging functions of the robotic cleaner.
Regarding claim 24, Arakawa, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Arakawa, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the sidewall extends substantially 180° around the robotic floor cleaner.
However, Zheng teaches a cleaning base station 10 for a robotic cleaner 90 (fig. 1). Additionally, Zheng teaches wherein the sidewall extends substantially 180° around the robotic floor cleaner (see fig. 1 of Zheng).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Arakawa, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Zheng to provide wherein the sidewall extends substantially 180° around the robotic floor cleaner. Specifically, it would have been obvious to modify the sidewall of Arakawa, as modified, to extend further around the robotic cleaner. Doing so would protect the robotic cleaner from inadvertent contact while the robotic cleaner is docked which promotes consistent charging functions of the robotic cleaner.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed 9/2/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the rear opening of ‘202 does not extend through the sidewall, is closed at the bottom, is not free of a bottom edge, and is not discontinuous along the bottom portion of the rear opening (bottom of page 6 of Applicant’s remarks). For these reasons, Applicant requests the rejections be withdrawn. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The ‘202 reference alone was not relied upon to teach the argued features. Rather, Arakawa (US PGPUB 20160347599) in view of Arakawa (US PGPUB 20160331202), hereinafter Arakawa ‘202, and further in view of Keiler III (US PGPUB 20190357747), hereinafter Keiler, and further in view of Henry (US Patent 6878881) was relied upon to teach the argued features, wherein Henry is newly cited. Henry teaches an opening which extends through the sidewall, is free of a bottom edge and is discontinuous along the bottom portion of the rear opening, wherein these teachings of Henry were incorporated into Arakawa, as modified. See above rejection for more details.
Applicant argues there is no evidence that the ‘599 reference is unstable in any way, and there is no need to provide an expanded footprint (top of page 7 of Applicant’s remarks).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the teachings of ‘202 were incorporated, and the relied upon motivation was: Modifying the sidewall of Arakawa to resemble the sidewall of Arakawa ‘202 would promote stability of the apparatus and the holding surface 30 because the sidewall has an expanded footprint (Specifically, the sidewall now partially extends around the cleaner instead of a single pillar 36). Including an opening in the sidewall to receive the charging station (as taught by Arakawa ‘202) would protect the charging station from being damaged which promotes longevity of the charging station. Therefore, the relied upon motivation is promoting increased stability due to the expanded footprint and protecting the charging station from being damaged which promotes longevity of the charging station. See above rejection for more details.
Applicant notes the rationales of protecting the charging station from being damaged and to promote a successful connection between the charging station and the cleaner. Applicant states both ‘599 and ‘202 protect the charging station from damage and that there is no evidence that the recess of ‘202 provides a better connection between the charging station and the cleaner (page 7 of Applicant’s remarks). The examiner respectfully disagrees. The recess of ‘202 was incorporated such that the charging station is housed in a specific location in order to properly seat the charging station. This promotes successful connection between the charging station and the cleaner due to the specific placing of the charger. Without the recess, the charging station is susceptible to misalignment because the charging station is merely attached to a wall with no locating recess. Overall, the incorporated recess promotes successful connection between the charging station and the cleaner. Additionally, due to the locating recess, the charging station is protected from sliding or inadvertent contact from the back end, which can damage the charging station. See above rejection for more details.
Applicant argues it is improper to rely on non-existent problems to justify a proposed obvious modification. The examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the relied upon rationales would promote increased stability, increased protection and increased successfully charging connections. The primary reference not explicitly recognizing these solutions and problems does not mean the problems are non-existent. Overall, the relied upon rationales provide motivation through promoting increased stability, increased protection and increased successfully charging connections. See above rejection for more details.
Applicant argues the ‘599 and ‘202 references are the same inventor, who did not see fit to make the proposed changes. The inventor’s own lack of motivation is further evidence that others skilled in the art would not do so (bottom of page 7 of Applicant’s remarks).
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant cannot speak to the inventor’s teachings across two different prior art teachings. Additionally, it appears the Applicant is arguing the examiner relied upon hindsight reasoning to make the modification.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
The ’202 reference was relied upon to teach the mounting recess, wherein this recess was incorporated with a plurality of motivations that do not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant’s disclosure. Accordingly, such a reconstruction is proper. See above rejection for more details.
Applicant argues the incorporation of the teachings of Keiler are improper because there is no evidence that the fit is a problem and that there is a maintenance issue. Additionally, Applicant argues the charging station would mount laterally, and that the weight of the charging station would counter the snug fit (page 8 of Applicant’s remarks). The examiner respectfully disagrees. As previously addressed in the above response to arguments, the primary reference not explicitly recognizing these solutions and problems does not mean the problems are non-existent. The relied upon motivations were a simple substitution (MPEP 2143) of one known positioning means for another known positioning means in order to obtain the predictable results of positioning the charging station with respect to the cover. Additionally, doing so would allow the charging station to be easily removed for repairs and maintenance. See MPEP 2143 regarding the simple substitution rationale, wherein the rationale is not improper. Additionally, the weight of the charging station would not counter the snug fit because the recess is sized to receive the shape of the charging station, wherein the shape is not affected by the weight. Overall, the positioning means of Keiler were incorporated through at least simple substitution (MPEP 2143). See above rejection for more details.
Applicant argues to incorporate the teachings of Keiler would result in a 360 degree recess in contradiction to the amended limitations of claims 1 and 15 (page 8 of Applicant’s remarks). The examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that the combination would result in a 360 degree recess, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Specifically, Keiler was relied upon to teach a recess for receiving the charging station through a snug fit. The modification did not include a bodily incorporation of a recess which surrounds in a 360 degree manner. See above rejection for more details.
Applicant argues Lucas does not teach the amended claim language (page 9 of Applicant’s remarks). However, Lucas is no longer relied upon. Rather, Henry was relied upon to teach the amended language. See above rejection for more details.
Applicant submits that there must be some rational underpinning to support a conclusion of obviousness and that all of the asserted reasons lack any rational underpinning. The examiner respectfully disagrees. See above response to arguments for more details wherein the relied upon rationales included simple substitution (MPEP 2143) and to promote stability, prevent damage and promote successful connections. See above rejection for more details.
Conclusion
6. 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 MICHAEL A GUMP whose telephone number is (571)272-2172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9:00-5:30.
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.
/MICHAEL A GUMP/Examiner, Art Unit 3723