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 .
Status
In response to the amendment filed on 10/30/2025, claim 1 has been amended, and new claim 22 is added. Claims 4 and 5 were previously cancelled. Claims 1-3 and 6-22 are pending and under examination.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Na et al. (US 2021/0038034, cited on 01/30/2023 IDS, hereinafter Na), in view of Ma et al. (CN 109394087A, hereinafter Ma).
Regarding claim 1, Na discloses a docking station for a mobile cleaning robot (fig. 1 station 1), the docking station comprising:
a base configured to receive at least a portion of the mobile cleaning robot (fig. 3, a base receives a portion of a robot cleaner 100), the base including an electrical power interface configured to provide electrical power to the mobile cleaning robot (see annotated Na fig. 1 below), the electrical power interface includes a pair of dock charging contacts connected to the base and configured to engage the robot charging contacts when the mobile cleaning robot is docked on the base (see annotated Na fig. 1 below and fig. 3, charging terminals 39 [correspond to the recited dock charging contacts] engage charging contacts of the robot cleaner when the robot cleaner is docked on the base); and
a canister connected to the base and located at least partially above the base (see annotated Na fig. 1 below), the canister comprising: a debris bin to receive debris from the mobile cleaning robot (fig. 2 and ¶ 0039, the canister comprises a dust container 10 which receives dust from the robot cleaner 100), but does not disclose the dock charging contacts movable between a retracted position and an extended position, the dock charging contacts engageable with the robot charging contacts when in the extended position, and a switch connected to the base and engageable with a body or one or more wheels of the mobile cleaning robot to move the dock charging contacts to the extended position.
Ma teaches, in an analogous docking station for mobile cleaning robot field of endeavor, the dock charging contacts movable between a retracted position and an extended position, the dock charging contacts engageable with the robot charging contacts when in the extended position, and a switch connected to the base and engageable with a body or one or more wheels of the mobile cleaning robot to move the dock charging contacts to the extended position (Ma English translation, p. 4:24-36 and figs. 1-4, when a robot moves to a pressing plate 4 [corresponds to the recited switch] of a charging base, a telescopic rod 16 [corresponds to the recited dock charging contact] extends out from the charging base to a charging interface of a robot to charge a battery of the robot. When the robot leaves the pressing plate 4 of the charging base, the telescopic rod is retracted to the charging base).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the switch and to have modified the dock charging contacts to be retractable as taught by Ma so that the dock charging contacts are retracted within a main body of the charging station to protect the dock charging contacts from damage and dust collection which may affect efficiency of charging.
PNG
media_image1.png
809
931
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Na Fig. 1
Regarding claim 2, Na as modified by Ma teaches the docking station as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein the base defines a pair of wheel wells configured to receive respective drive wheels of the mobile cleaning robot therein to align robot charging contacts of the mobile cleaning robot with the electrical power interface of the base (see annotated Na fig. 1 above and fig. 3, the base has a pair of wheel wells; ¶ 0059-60, when the robot cleaner 100 is connected to the station 1, a battery of the robot cleaner is charged through charging terminals 32).
Regarding claim 14, Na as modified by Ma teaches the docking station as in the rejection of claim 1, further comprising: an evacuation fan connected to the canister and connectable to the mobile cleaning robot to evacuate debris from a debris bin of the mobile cleaning robot to a debris bag of the canister (Na, ¶ 0039 and fig. 3, the station 1 includes a driver 20 [corresponds to the recited evacuation fan] which exerts suction force to collect foreign substance collected in the robot cleaner 100 to a dust bag 200 disposed in the dust container 10).
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Na et al. (US 2021/0038034, cited on 01/30/2023 IDS, hereinafter Na), in view of Gao et al. (CN 112971633A, hereinafter Gao ‘633).
Regarding claim 16, Na discloses a docking station for a mobile cleaning robot (fig. 1 station 1), the docking station comprising:
a base configured to receive at least a portion of the mobile cleaning robot (fig. 3, a base receives a portion of a robot cleaner 100), the base including an electrical power interface configured to provide electrical power to the mobile cleaning robot (see annotated Na fig. 1 above);
a canister connected to the base and located at least partially above the base (see annotated Na fig. 1 above), the canister comprising: a debris bin to receive debris from the mobile cleaning robot (fig. 2 and ¶ 0039, the canister comprises a dust container 10 which receives dust from the robot cleaner 100); and
a door connected the canister and movable between an open position and a closed position (¶ 0042 and figs. 3 and 7A, a cover member 50 [corresponds to the recited door] is connected to the canister and movable between an open position and a closed position), but does not disclose a front portion of the canister is user-accessible when the door is in the open position.
In specification of the instant application, it states opening of the door from the front portion of the canister provides access to debris bin (¶ 0047). Although the door of Na opens upward of the canister, a user can surely access the dust container 10.
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide the door of the canister to open upward since applicant has not disclosed that by doing so produces any unexpected results or is critical to the design and it appears that the door of Na would perform equally as well by doing so, and because a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily dispose the door on top of the canister to access the debris bin placed in the canister so that the dust filled debris bin can be emptied by a user.
But Na does not disclose a fluid tank connected to the canister to deliver cleaning fluid to the mobile cleaning robot.
Gao ‘633 teaches, in an analogous docking station for mobile cleaning robot field of endeavor, a fluid tank connected to the canister to deliver cleaning fluid to the mobile cleaning robot (Gao ‘633 English translation, p. 27:9-23 and fig. 11, a base station 2 [corresponds to the recited docking station] comprises a liquid storage cavity 212 to use water with a cleaning machine 1 [corresponds to the recited mobile cleaning robot]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the docking station of Na to provide the fluid tank as taught by Gao ‘633 so that water can be used for cleaning a cleaning piece of the robot cleaner (Gao ‘633 English translation, p. 10:25-37).
Na as modified by Gao ‘633 still does not disclose the fluid tank is insertable through a front portion of the canister.
However, as discussed similarly above, Na discloses the cover member 50 disposed at the top of the canister to open it upward and the dust container 10 can be inserted through the top door.
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the canister to allow the fluid tank to be inserted through the top portion of the canister since applicant has not disclosed that by doing so produces any unexpected results or is critical to the design and it appears that the canister of Na would perform equally as well by doing so, and because a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily dispose the door on top of the canister so that the fluid tank is insertable through the top portion of the canister. By doing so a user can remove the empty fluid tank and insert the water filled fluid tank.
Regarding claim 17, Na as modified by Gao ‘633 teaches the docking station as in the rejection of claim 16, further comprising: an evacuation fan connected to the canister and connectable to the mobile cleaning robot to evacuate debris from a debris bin of the mobile cleaning robot to a debris bag of the canister (Na, ¶ 0039 and fig. 3, as discussed in claim 14 above, the station 1 includes a driver 20 [corresponds to the recited evacuation fan] which exerts suction force to collect foreign substance collected in the robot cleaner 100 to a dust bag 200 disposed in the dust container 10).
Regarding claim 18, Na as modified by Gao ‘633 teaches the docking station as in the rejection of claim 17, further comprising a bag drawer is slidably insertable into a bag compartment of the canister between an open position and a closed position (Gao ‘633 English translation, p. 29:1-3 and figs. 11, 14-16, a separation box 213 [corresponds to the bag drawer] is detachably mounted in a space between a liquid storage cavity 212 and a sewage collecting cavity 201. The space is considered as a bag compartment. The detached separation box is considered to be in an open position and the mounted separation box is considered to be in a closed position), the bag drawer is configured to releasably receive the debris bag therein (Na, fig. 9B and ¶ 0067, a dust bag 200 is mountable in the dust container 10 [corresponds to the recited bag drawer]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the docking station of Na as modified by Gao ‘633 to provide the insertable bag drawer as taught by Gao ‘633 so that a user can take off the bag drawer for dumping debris (Gao ‘633 English translation, p. 29:1-3).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Na in view of Ma, as applied to claim 2 above, in view of Liang et al. (US 2021/0127923, hereinafter Liang).
Regarding claim 3, Na as modified by Ma teaches the docking station as in the rejection of claim 2, but does not disclose a pair of wheel switches located in the pair of wheel wells, respectively, the pair of wheel switches independently engageable by respective drive wheels when the drive wheels are positioned in respective ones of the wheel wells to produce independent docking signals.
Liang teaches, in an analogous docking station for mobile cleaning robot field of endeavor, a pair of wheel switches located in the pair of wheel wells, respectively, the pair of wheel switches independently engageable by respective drive wheels when the drive wheels are positioned in respective ones of the wheel wells to produce independent docking signals (¶ 0031 and fig. 12, a base of a docking station 700 has a pair of grooves 720 [correspond to the recited wheel wells], in which pressure sensors 713 are mounted. When wheels of a cleaning robot 100 are positioned in the grooves, a controller allows a suction device of the docking station start to suck trash. Thus, activation of the pressure sensors produces signals for the docking station to activate).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the docking station of Na as modified by Ma to provide the wheel switches as taught by Liang so that the docking station can empty dust collected in the robot cleaner automatically when the robot cleaner is connected to the docking station.
Claims 6, 7, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Na in view of Ma, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Yoneyama et al. (US 2012/0274282, hereinafter Yoneyama).
Regarding claim 6, Na as modified by Ma teaches the docking station as in the rejection of claim 1, but does not disclose explicitly the dock charging contacts are biased to the retracted position.
Yoneyama teaches, in a charging device field of endeavor and capable solving primary problem, the dock charging contacts are biased to the retracted position (figs. 15A, 15B and ¶ 0044, in a charging device, a charging contact 116, 118 is retracted as a spring 106 is biased).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the dock charging contacts of Na as modified by Ma to be biased to retract the charging contacts as taught by Yoneyama so that the charging contacts are placed in correct positions based on the charging state of the device.
Regarding claim 7, Na as modified by Ma and Yoneyama teaches the docking station as in the rejection of claim 6, wherein the switch is engageable with a wheel of the mobile cleaning robot (Ma English translation, p. 4:24-36 and figs. 1-2, when a roller 11 [corresponds to the recited wheel] of a robot moves to a pressing plate 4 [corresponds to the recited switch] of a charging base, a telescopic rod 16 [corresponds to the recited dock charging contact] extends out from the charging base to a charging interface of a robot to charge a battery of the robot), and engagement of the switch overcomes bias of the dock charging contacts (Yoneyama ¶ 0037, the cradle charging contacts in a form of wedge or arrow-shaped portions 116, 120 of the springs 106, 108 are moveable as a frame 88 pivots in response to depression of a button 98. Thus, the activation of the button can overcome bias of the charging contacts).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the docking station of Na as modified by Ma and Yoneyama to provide the bias overcoming switch as taught by Yoneyama so that the charging contacts can be quickly available for charging a device.
Regarding claim 21, Na as modified by Ma teaches the docking station as in the rejection of claim 1, but does not disclose a pair of arms connected to the switch and connected to the pair of dock charging contacts, respectively, the switch engageable with the mobile cleaning robot to move the arms to extend the pair of dock charging contacts to the extended position.
Yoneyama teaches, in the charging device field of endeavor and capable solving primary problem, a pair of arms connected to the switch and connected to the pair of dock charging contacts, respectively, the switch engageable with the mobile cleaning robot to move the arms to extend the pair of dock charging contacts to the extended position (¶ 0037, a charging device comprises an actuator button 98 [corresponds to the recited switch] used for extending/retracting the charging contacts 116, 120. A pair of arms is defined as shown in the annotated Yoneyama fig. 7 below. The pair of arms is connected to the button 98 and the charging contacts 116, 120; fig. 15A shows the charging contact is extended and fig. 15B shows the charging contact is retracted. As the actuator button 98 is moved, the arm (shown in fig. 15 as an L-bracket where the reference number 106 is shown) also moves to extend/retract the charging contact).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the docking station of Na as modified by Ma to provide the pair of arms in the charging device as taught by Yoneyama. The pair of arms helps moving the charging contacts in response to depression of the button/switch (Yoneyama ¶ 0037).
PNG
media_image2.png
646
1106
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Yoneyama Fig. 7
Regarding claim 22, Na as modified by Ma and Yoneyama teaches the docking station as in the rejection of claim 21, further comprising: a pair of linkages connected to the pair of arms, respectively; a pair of supports connected to the base and pivotably connected to the pair of linkages, respectively (see annotated Yoneyama fig. 7 above for the recited pair of linkages 112, 114 and the pair of supports 102, 104 connected to the base 90 and pivotably connected to the pair of linkages).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the docking station of Na as modified by Ma and Yoneyama to provide the recited elements in the charging device as taught by Yoneyama. They help moving the charging contacts in response to depression of the button/switch (Yoneyama ¶ 0037).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Na in view of Ma, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Lee et al. (KR 100762095B1, hereinafter Lee).
Regarding claim 8, Na as modified by Ma teaches the docking station as in the rejection of claim 1, but does not disclose a pair of magnets associated with respective ones of the dock charging contacts and attractable to the robot charging contacts, respectively.
Lee teaches, in an analogous docking station for mobile cleaning robot field of endeavor, a pair of magnets associated with respective ones of the dock charging contacts and attractable to the robot charging contacts, respectively (Lee English translation, p. 6:18-23 and fig. 2, a docking structure 140 has a pair of permanent magnets 131 which attract a charging contact 220 of a robot cleaner 200).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the docking station of Na as modified by Ma to provide the pair of magnets as taught by Lee in order to make sure charging contacts are coupled correctly so that charging is always executed properly.
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Na in view of Ma, as applied to claim 1 above respectively, in view of Gao ‘633.
Regarding claim 9, Na as modified by Ma teaches the docking station as in the rejection of claim 1, but does not disclose a fluid tank connected to the canister to deliver cleaning fluid to the mobile cleaning robot.
Gao ‘633 teaches, in an analogous docking station for mobile cleaning robot field of endeavor, a fluid tank connected to the canister to deliver cleaning fluid to the mobile cleaning robot (Gao ‘633 English translation, p. 27:9-23 and fig. 11, a base station 2 [corresponds to the recited docking station] comprises a liquid storage cavity 212 to use water with a cleaning machine 1 [corresponds to the recited mobile cleaning robot]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the docking station of Na as modified by Ma to provide the fluid tank as taught by Gao ‘633 so that water can be used for cleaning a cleaning piece of the robot cleaner (Gao ‘633 English translation, p. 10:25-37).
Regarding claim 11, Na as modified by Ma and Gao ‘633 teaches the docking station as in the rejection of claim 9, but does not disclose the fluid tank is insertable through a front portion of the canister.
However, as discussed similarly in claim 16 above, Na discloses the cover member 50 disposed at the top of the canister to open it upward and the dust container 10 can be inserted through the top door.
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the canister to allow the fluid tank to be inserted through the top portion of the canister since applicant has not disclosed that by doing so produces any unexpected results or is critical to the design and it appears that the canister of Na would perform equally as well by doing so, and because a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily dispose the door on top of the canister so that the fluid tank is insertable through the top portion of the canister. By doing so a user can remove the empty fluid tank and insert the water filled fluid tank.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Na in view of Ma and Gao ‘633, as applied to claim 9 above, and in further view of Duan (CN 113133721A).
Regarding claim 10, Na as modified by Ma and Gao ‘633 teaches the docking station as in the rejection of claim 9, but does not disclose a fill spout connected to the canister and fluidly connected to the fluid tank, the fill spout insertable into a portion of the mobile cleaning robot to deliver cleaning fluid from the fluid tank to the mobile cleaning robot.
Duan teaches, in an analogous docking station for mobile cleaning robot field of endeavor, a fill spout connected to the canister and fluidly connected to the fluid tank, the fill spout insertable into a portion of the mobile cleaning robot to deliver cleaning fluid from the fluid tank to the mobile cleaning robot (figs. 3-6, 15 and Duan English translation, p. 8:11-31, a canister of a base 20 [corresponds to the recited docking station] has a water storage tank 24. A water adding head 23 [corresponds to the recited fill spout] is connected to the water storage tank 24 and inserted into a water inlet 11 of a floor sweeping robot to deliver water to a water tank 10 of the robot).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the docking station of Na as modified by Ma and Gao ‘633 to provide the fill spout connected to the fluid tank as taught by Duan so that the robot can return to the docking station to refill water automatically. It solves a problem of having small amount of cleaning water to use for a robot without water refilling docking station (Duan English translation, abstract).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Na in view of Ma and Gao ‘633, as applied to claim 11 above, and in further view of Gao et al. (CN 213665090U, hereinafter Gao ‘090).
Regarding claim 12, Na as modified by Ma and Gao ‘633 teaches the docking station as in the rejection of claim 11, but does not disclose a fill valve connected to the fluid tank and engageable with a port of the canister to move the fill valve to an open position when the fluid tank is secured to the canister.
Gao ‘090 teaches, in an analogous docking station for mobile cleaning robot field of endeavor, a fill valve connected to the fluid tank and engageable with a port of the canister to move the fill valve to an open position when the fluid tank is secured to the canister (figs. 5, 6 and Gao ‘090 English translation, p. 5:15-21 and p. 10:23-27, a water tank 200 of a robot cleaner has a discharge port valve 234 [corresponds to the recited fill valve]. The valve 234 is engaged with a connecting nozzle 120 [corresponds to the recited port] of a water tank shell 100 [corresponds to the recited canister]. The valve 234 opens when the water tank 200 is secured to the water tank shell 100. The disclosed structures of Gao ‘090 is for a robot cleaner, instead of docking station, however, the teaching of connecting the valve and port for filling water to the water tank is readily applicable to fluid tank of 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 have modified the docking station of Na as modified by Ma and Gao ‘633 to provide the fill valve as taught by Gao ‘090 so that water tank is filled only when the water tank is in a correctly mounted position.
Regarding claim 13, Na as modified by Ma, Gao ‘633, and Gao ‘090 teaches the docking station as in the rejection of claim 12, wherein the port of the canister is secured by a brace (Gao ‘090, figs. 15a-c, an insertion part sealing piece 130 [corresponds to the recited brace] helps the connecting nozzle 120 [corresponds to the recited port] to be placed securely when the discharge port valve 234 [corresponds to the recited fill valve] of the water tank 200 is engaged).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Na as modified by Ma, Gao ‘633, and Gao ‘090 to provide the brace as taught by Gao ‘090. It helps the port to fit well so that no water leaks to the outside (Gao ‘090 English translation, p. 10:2-6).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Na in view of Ma, as applied to claim 14, in view of Chang et al. (KR 101496913B1, hereinafter Chang).
Regarding claim 15, Na as modified by Ma teaches the docking station as in the rejection of claim 14, but does not disclose an evacuation discharge connected to a discharge side of the evacuation fan and extending through the canister, the evacuation discharge configured to discharge evacuation air toward the base.
Chang teaches, in an analogous docking station for mobile cleaning robot field of endeavor, an evacuation discharge connected to a discharge side of the evacuation fan and extending through the canister, the evacuation discharge configured to discharge evacuation air toward the base (figs. 4-5 and Chang English translation, p. 5:15-31, a discharge duct 64a, 64b [corresponds to the recited evacuation discharge] is connected to a discharge side of a pump unit 62 and is extended through a canister of a docking station 2. Evacuation air is discharged through an exhaust port 58a, 58b, 59a, 59b disposed on a base of the docking station 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the docking station of Na as modified by Ma to provide the evacuation discharge as taught by Chang. Because the suction port and the exhaust port are disposed close to each other on the base, air can be circulated in a closed loop so that no dust escape the docking station (Chang English translation, p. 6:3-7).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Na in view of Gao ‘633, as applied to claim 18 above, and in further view of Lauer et al. (US 2019/0223669, hereinafter Lauer).
Regarding claim 19, Na as modified by Gao ‘633 teaches the docking station as in the rejection of claim 18, but does not disclose the bag drawer includes a seal connected to an inner front face of the bag drawer, the seal engageable with the bag compartment to seal the bag drawer when the bag drawer is in the closed position.
Lauer teaches, in an analogous docking station field of endeavor, the bag drawer includes a seal connected to an inner front face of the bag drawer, the seal engageable with the bag compartment to seal the bag drawer when the bag drawer is in the closed position (figs. 6A, 7A, 8 and ¶ 0047-49, 0062, 0090, a dust collection box 36 in a docking station comprises a container 2020 having a lid 1022. The lid 1022 is surrounded by a rubber seal 1036. When the lid 1022 is pivoted to its closed position, it seals a large aperture of the container 1020. Thus, Lauer teaches a debris bin in a docking station can have a seal that seals the structure when the debris bin is in a closed position).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified docking station of Na as modified by Gao ‘633 to provide the seal as taught by Lauer so that air passes only through an intended path (Lauer ¶ 0062).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Na in view of Gao ‘633 and Lauer, as applied to claim 19 above, and in further view of Chang.
Regarding claim 20, Na as modified by Gao ‘633 and Lauer teaches the docking station as in the rejection of claim 19, but does not disclose an evacuation discharge connected to a discharge of the bag drawer and extending through the canister, the evacuation discharge configured to discharge evacuation air toward the base.
Chang teaches, in the analogous docking station for mobile cleaning robot field of endeavor, an evacuation discharge connected to a discharge of the bag drawer and extending through the canister, the evacuation discharge configured to discharge evacuation air toward the base (figs. 4-5 and Chang English translation, p. 5:15-31, a discharge duct 64a, 64b [corresponds to the recited evacuation discharge] is connected to a discharge side of a dust discharge tube 65 [corresponds to the recited bag drawer] and is extended through a canister of a docking station 2. Evacuation air is discharged through an exhaust port 58a, 58b, 59a, 59b disposed on a base of the docking station 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the docking station of Na as modified by Gao ‘633 and Lauer to provide the evacuation discharge as taught by Chang. Because the suction port and the exhaust port are disposed close to each other on the base, air can be circulated in a closed loop so that no dust escape the docking station (Chang English translation, p. 6:3-7).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. §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 Ma.
Applicant argues Ebrahimi does not teach or suggest the amended claim limitations that a switch connected to the base and engageable with a body or one or more wheels of the mobile cleaning robot to move the dock charging contacts to the extended position. Examiner acknowledges Ebrahimi teaches extending the charging contact as the robot approaches the charging station. The detection of the robot is done by a signal reception instead of physical interaction (¶ 0276).
However, Ma teaches the charging contact can be extended and retracted as a robot moves on to a pressing plate of a charging station. Therefore, Ma’s charging station requires physical interaction with a body or one or more wheel of the robot to activate the pressing plate to work as a switch.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues it is not obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the door of the canister at the top of the canister as taught by Na by a design choice, instead of having the door at the front portion of the canister. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant asserts in order to rely on the design choice, there must be presented a simple rearrangement of parts, and the obvious design choice needs to be precluded when the claimed structure performs differently. Applicant further asserts because each component within the canister would need to be redesigned to accommodate the access, the design choice rejection is inappropriate.
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 those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2145(III)).
Of course, it is necessary to modify a base structure in order to rearrange a component. Having the door at the top of the canister or at the front portion of the canister would require rearranging hinges to accommodate the door. However, a fluid tank and a debris bag would still be in the canister to be accessible by a user. Because Na teaches the door allowing the access into the canister, it suggests door can be disposed on any portion of the canister. Function of the door is the same no matter where the door is disposed.
Although, the rejection by the obvious design choice is valid, Examiner lists a relevant reference in Conclusion. Li teaches a charging station and a robot wherein the charging station has a front door for a user to access a dust collecting bag. Therefore, the claim limitations regarding the front door are not novel.
Finally, Applicant argues combination of Na, Ebrahimi, and Yoneyama does not teach or suggest claim limitations of claim 21 that a pair of arms connected to the switch and connected to the pair of dock charging contacts to make the switch to move the arms to extend the pair of dock charging contacts to the extended position. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Although Ebrahimi cited in the previous non-final rejection office action and Ma cited in the current final rejection office action teach the charging contacts extend or retract, they do not disclose explicitly the pair of arms connected to the switch and utilized to extend the pair of dock charging contacts. Thus, Yoneyama is cited for teaching the recited pair of arms connected to the switch and the charging contacts. The combination of Yoneyama with Ma teaches the recited claim limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 21 above.
Applicant also argues Yoneyama is a non-analogous reference because Yoneyama is directed to a video game system. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Yoneyama teaches a game device, not a robot cleaner, but it teaches a charging cradle having extendable charging contacts. The components of the charger of Yoneyama can be designated as shown in annotated Yoneyama fig. 7 above. A frame tab 110 is designated as the arm, and the tab moves as shown in figs. 15A and 15B when the charging contacts are extended or retracted. Therefore, Yoneyama provides teaching that is reasonably pertinent to the problem of the instant application.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Li (CN 112773273A) discloses a mobile robot 2 and a robot base station 1 wherein the robot base station includes a movable door 28 at a front portion of the station used for accessing a dust collecting bag 25.
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 SUKWOO JAMES CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7402. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00a-5:00p.
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.
/S.J.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723