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
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments . The previous rejections are withdrawn. New rejections are made herein and are made final
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 11 contain the limitation “the duster cloth is in contact with the negative pressure space, a surface of the duster cloth being in contact with the negative pressure space faces away from the base of the robot”. This limitation does not appear in the specification. When looking to the figures, Figure 1 is discussed being prior art. Figures 2-5 show the current invention. It appears Item 2 is separated from the negative pressure space by Item 15. As such the claim is determined to be new matter. Claims 2-10 and 12-15 are also rejected due to dependency.
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.
Claims 1, and 3-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raphael (DE102008029687A1) in view of Francoeur (US 7,254,866).
Regarding claim 1, Raphael discloses a cleaning robot (connects to a vacuum source of any kind, no robotic features recited, vacuums have a certain level of self control that makes them robotic to a degree), comprising: a negative pressure space (Items 2 provides suction to the housing (Item 5). Everything within the housing is subject to negative pressure); wherein,
the negative pressure space is enclosed by a base of the robot (Figure 16 item 5 or 30), a duster cloth (Item 4) and a surface to be cleaned exposed by the duster cloth, and the negative pressure space directly faces the surface to be cleaned exposed by the duster cloth and is directly in contact with the surface to be cleaned exposed by the duster cloth (Item 13); and
wherein, the duster cloth comprises a layer of wiping cloth (Items 21) in contact with the surface to be cleaned, a detachable connection part (Paragraph 10) close to and detachable from a base of the robot, and a sealing layer (Items 22 and 27) located between the wiping cloth and the detachable connection part, the sealing layer comprises a sealing film (Paragraph 104-118).
Raphael fails to explicitly disclose wherein the duster cloth is arranged on the base of the robot and is arranged along edges of the base of the robot, the negative pressure space is located on a middle portion of the base of the robot AND the duster cloth is in contact with the negative pressure space, a surface of the duster cloth being in contact with the negative pressure space faces away from the base of the robot.
Francoeur teaches a cleaning tool wherein the duster cloth is arranged on the base and is arranged along edges of the base of the robot, the negative pressure space is located on a middle portion of the base and the duster cloth is in contact with the negative pressure space, a surface of the duster cloth being in contact with the negative pressure space faces away from the base of the robot (Item 68 and 70 Figures 3 and 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Raphael to move the apertures to the middle of the cleaning tool as taught by Francoeur. Francoeur further discusses how this “proposed invention allows for efficient cleaning of a variety of surfaces such as rugs, carpets, furniture, car upholstery, pets and the like with reduced risks of damaging the latter.” (Column 3 Lines 46-50).
Regarding claim 3, Raphael in view of Francoeur disclose the cleaning robot according to claim 1, wherein the sealing layer is made of a sponge (Item 27) made by an integral skin foaming processing (limitation viewed as a product by process, since this is a product claim, the process of foaming is not necessary to the claim), and wherein the sponge made by the integral skin foaming processing has a skin with a first density and a core with a second density, and the first density is larger than the second density (Raphael; Figure 15, Paragraph 118).
Regarding claim 4, Raphael in view of Francoeur disclose the cleaning robot according to claim 1, wherein the sealing layer comprises a sponge and one layer of sealing film provided on at least one of the upper side and the lower side of the sponge (Raphael; Items 22 and 27).
Regarding claim 5, Raphael in view of Francoeur disclose the cleaning robot according to claim 1, wherein said detachable connection part is a hooked-loop connection member (Raphael; Paragraph 10, Velcro is a form of hook and loop fastener).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Raphael in view of Francoeur disclose the cleaning robot according to claim 3 (or 4). Raphael fails to explicitly disclose wherein the thickness of the sponge is larger than 2 mm and less than 3 mm.
The thickness of the sponge is determined based on the type of material and the density of the foaming material, there are different elastic values of the foamed layer. Thus optimizing the thickness based on elastic properties of the foamed layer, the floor type in which it is intended to be used, and the weight of the cleaning machine, would result in a result effective variable. A result effective variable is a variable in which achieves a recognized result as set forth above. Therefore since the general conditions of the claim (e.g. having the claimed structure as recited above) is disclosed by Raphael it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when the invention was filed to provide the thickness of the of the foam layer to be larger than 2mm and less than 3mm. Further in the instant application Paragraphs [25] applicant has not disclosed any criticality (or unexpected result) for the claimed limitations. Such a modification is viewed as a change in size, which has been held to be of routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding claim 8, Raphael in view of Francoeur disclose the cleaning robot according to claim 1, further comprising: a walking unit (Raphael; Item 9), and a vacuumizing unit; wherein, the vacuumizing unit comprises a fan motor and fan blades (Paragraph 137).
Regarding claim 9, Raphael in view of Francoeur disclose the cleaning robot according to claim 1, wherein the sealing layer is elastic (Raphael; Item 27 is foam).
Regarding claim 10, Raphael in view of Francoeur disclose the cleaning robot according to claim 1, wherein the duster cloth is an independent integrated element related to the base of the robot (Raphael; Paragraph 113).
Regarding claim 11, Raphael discloses a cleaning robot, comprising: a negative pressure space (Items 2 or 8); wherein,
the negative pressure space is enclosed by a base of the robot (Figure 16 Item 5 and 30), a duster cloth (Item 4) and a surface to be cleaned exposed by the duster cloth, and the negative pressure space faces directly the surface to be cleaned exposed by the duster cloth and is directly in contact with the surface to be cleaned, exposed by the duster cloth;
and wherein, the duster cloth comprises a layer of wiping cloth in contact with the surface to be cleaned (Item 21), a detachable connection part close to and detachable from a base of the robot (Paragraph 10), and a sealing layer (Items 22 and 27) located between the wiping cloth and the detachable connection part, and the sealing layer is elastic (foam is elastic).
Raphael fails to explicitly disclose wherein the duster cloth is arranged on the base of the robot and is arranged along edges of the base of the robot, the negative pressure space is located on a middle portion of the base of the robot AND the duster cloth is in contact with the negative pressure space, a surface of the duster cloth being in contact with the negative pressure space faces away from the base of the robot.
Francoeur teaches a cleaning tool wherein the duster cloth is arranged on the base and is arranged along edges of the base of the robot, the negative pressure space is located on a middle portion of the base and the duster cloth is in contact with the negative pressure space, a surface of the duster cloth being in contact with the negative pressure space faces away from the base of the robot (Item 68 and 70 Figures 3 and 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Raphael to move the apertures to the middle of the cleaning tool as taught by Francoeur. Francoeur further discusses how this “proposed invention allows for efficient cleaning of a variety of surfaces such as rugs, carpets, furniture, car upholstery, pets and the like with reduced risks of damaging the latter.” (Column 3 Lines 46-50).
Regarding claim 12, Raphael in view of Francoeur disclose the cleaning robot according to claim 11, wherein the duster cloth is an independent integrated element related to the base of the robot (Raphael; Paragraph 113).
Regarding claim 13, Raphael in view of Francoeur disclose the cleaning robot according to claim 11, wherein the cleaning robot is adsorbed onto a surface through the negative pressure space (the vacuum and weight of the cleaning device draws the device closer to the floor).
Regarding claim 14, Raphael in view of Francoeur disclose the cleaning robot according to claim 11, wherein the sealing layer comprises a sealing film, and the sealing film is provided on at least one of an upper side and a lower side of the wiping cloth (Raphael; Item 22; Paragraph 104-118).
Regarding claim 15, Raphael in view of Francoeur disclose the cleaning robot according to claim 1, wherein the duster cloth surrounds a sealing chamber (Raphael; Item 11; Francoeur Figure 4).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raphael (DE102008029687A1) in view of Francoeur (US 7,254,866) in view of You (US 2005/0144752).
Regarding claim 2, Raphael in view of Francoeur disclose the cleaning robot according to claim 1. Raphael fails to explicitly disclose wherein the sealing layer is made of a foamed EPDM material (Raphael does disclose a foam layer 27, but no discussion of the specific material of EPDM).
You teaches a floor cleaning device wherein the foamed layer is made of an EPDM material (Paragraph 29). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply substitute the material of the foam layer of Raphael for the EPDM material as taught by You. Such a modification is viewed as a change in material, which has been held to be of routine by one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04). When looking at the instant application there is no criticality given to the material of EPDM. EPDM is a commonly used rubber material for seals due to its anti-mold properties.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 4/20/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 11 under 103-Raphael in view of Roth 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 Raphael in view of Francoeur , as discussed above.
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
Prosecution Insights