DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 4-6, 8, 10, 11-23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 4-6, 8, 10, 11-13, 15-23 the limitations of each claim do not positively recite a method step. For example, in claim 4, it is suggested that the applicant replace “wherein the differential pressure is compared with a limit value” to “wherein the method further comprises comparing, by the data processing device, the differential pressure with a limit value” with “comparing” being the positively recited method step.
Regarding claim 14, the term “a base station” in line 4, should be changed to “the base station”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 4-6, 8, 10, 18 and 21 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.
Regarding claim 1:
The limitations that the fill level and “further state” (proper filter insertion or cleaning device connection) are determined by comparing the (single) detected pressure differential to respective first and second limit values or pressure ranges. However, looking to the specification, the limit values and pressure ranges disclosed for determining these states include disclosed values that overlap one another (for example, a pressure of more than 5 or 6 hPa is disclosed to indicate an empty fill level or less than 20% (Pg. 28, lines 13-15) while a range of 8-10 or more than 8 indicates either the filter not being correctly inserted or the cleaning device not being correctly connected (Pg. 34, lines 19-22). Thus, a range of “more than 6” will overlap a range of “more than 8” or “8-10”, whereas there is no disclosure for how the two separate states (fill level and filter/cleaner connection) could be differentiated from one another if the detected differential pressure falls in an overlapping range (i.e. if the pressure is exactly 8).
Similar to the above listed issue, the application also discloses the same limit value and pressure range for both of the further states, such that the application also lacks support for how the method would differentiate between an improperly installed filter, an improper connection between the cleaning device and base station or both, as suggested by the “and/or” terminology in line 16. It is suggested that the applicant clarify that only one of the two optionally listed states may be determined and also delete the “and/or” language.
The limitations “based at least on the differential pressure value and a first/second limit value or first/second pressure range” in lines 10-11 and 13-14, lacks supporting disclosure, because the term “at least” suggests that other information or variables may also be used to determined the respective states of the base station, whereas the application focuses on using only the differential pressure compared to reference data. It is suggested that the applicant delete the term “at least” from both sections.
The limitation in lines 18-20 also lacks proper support, because it is not understood to be possible to simultaneously interrupt an extraction process (turn off the active process) and prevent operation (keep the process from being started), because one requires the device to be active and stops activation, while the other requires the device to be inactive and prevents activation. It is suggested that the applicant delete the term “or more” from line 18 to overcome this issue.
Regarding claim 4, as discussed for claim 1, due to the overlapping values of the disclosed limit values, and disclosure that only one differential pressure reading may be used to determine each of the different states of the base station, the application does not support how a single state may be determined (due to overlapping values, how can the data processing device differentiate when the detected value is within an overlapping range) or how more than one state may be determined (due to and/or language; it is suggested that the “and” be deleted from the “and/or” term).
Regarding claim 5:
Similar to claim 1, the disclosed limit range for the clogged intake tract also overlaps the range of a fill level of 80-90%, as well as the identical level for a clog (elsewhere) in the base station. Thus, there is not sufficient support for how the different “further states” could be differentiated from one another if the detected differential pressure falls in an overlapping or same range.
The limitation that the determination is made “at least on the pressure sensor and/or differential pressure value” is not supported because the pressure sensor itself is not disclosed to be capable of performing any comparison, only provides the data processing device with the differential pressure value, and is not disclosed as being accounted for along with the differential pressure (suggested by the “and/or” language). It is suggested that the applicant delete the limitation “at least” and “the pressure sensor and/or” from the claim.
Regarding claim 6, the application fails to disclose how the process can locate a blockage based on the differential pressure. As discussed for claim 5 above, the disclosure recites different three potential location of a blockage (base station intake tract, within the base station or within the cleaning device; Pg. 33, lines 7-26), all of which would have the same differential pressure limit/range, with no further disclosure of how the data processing device may differentiate between them. Thus, the ability to locate a blockage is not fully supported by the application as a whole.
Regarding claim 8:
Similar to claim 1, the disclosed limit range for the improperly inserted or missing filter is the same as the limit range for the container not being closed. Thus, there is not sufficient support for how the different “further states” could be differentiated from one another if the detected differential pressure falls in the same range.
The limitation that the determination is made “at least on the pressure sensor and/or differential pressure value” is not supported because the pressure sensor itself is not disclosed to be capable of performing any comparison, only provides the data processing device with the differential pressure value, and is not disclosed as being accounted for along with the differential pressure (suggested by the “and/or” language). It is suggested that the applicant delete the limitation “at least” and “the pressure sensor and/or” from the claim.
Regarding claim 10:
Similar to claim 1, it is not understood to be possible to simultaneously interrupt an extraction process (turn off the active process) and prevent operation (keep the process from being started), because one requires the device to be active and stops activation, while the other requires the device to be inactive and prevents activation. It is suggested that the applicant delete the term “and” from “and/or” in line 2 to overcome this issue.
The limitation that the process is interrupted or blocked :by a control device disabling a blower” lacks supporting disclosure in the original application and therefore is considered to be New Matter.
Regarding claim 18, the limitation that the process is interrupted or blocked :by a control device disabling a blower” lacks supporting disclosure in the original application and therefore is considered to be New Matter.
Regarding claim 21, there is no supporting disclosure for a check to be “performed by the pressure sensor”. Similar to claims 5 and 8, the pressure sensor is only disclosed to be capable of detecting a pressure or pressure differential and indicating the pressure to the data processing device, but is not capable of analyzing data or “performing a check” as claimed.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 12, 13, 14, 20 and 21 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 1:
The limitation “differential pressure to surroundings” is unclear because the term “surroundings” may be interpreted to have different meanings, including other internal portions of the air flow path or surrounding atmospheric pressure.
It is also unclear if the “first limit value or first pressure range” and “second limit value or second pressure range” differ from one another in any way, which would further confuse how the process is capable of differentiating the fill level from any of the other states to be identified (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) above).
It is unclear how the process may be interrupted and blocked/prevented at the same time. Again, deleting “and” from “and/or” would correct this issue.
Regarding claim 4, as discussed above, it is unclear how the process may determine more than one of the filling level or further state (more than one suggested by the “and” language of “and/or”) by comparing the differential pressure to a (single) limit value. Based on the disclosure, a single limit value would only be capable of determining one state of the cleaner (unless the limit value is one of the overlapping values, which then raises the issue of how the two different potential states are differentiated, as discussed above).
Regarding claims 5 and 8, as discussed above, it is also unclear how the data processing device differentiates between states in overlapping or the same ranges and also how the pressure sensor itself is considered for determining the state, as opposed to the differential pressure value, which is received from the sensor.
Regarding claim 6, as discussed above, it is unclear how the data processing device differentiates between the multiple potential blockage locations based on the same differential pressure limit range.
Regarding claim 10:
It is unclear how the process may be interrupted and blocked/prevented at the same time. Again, deleting “and” from “and/or” would correct this issue.
The term “blocked” is unclear because it suggests some potential physical blocking of the airflow path. It is best understood that the term is intended to refer to electronically “preventing” the process and will be treated as such for the sake of the current Office Action.
Claims 12, 13 and 20 are further unclear, because they do not clearly recite a step that would necessarily be performed by the data processing device. For instance, “a new extraction process is performed only by a user input” does not actually require any step to happen. Similarly, limiting a maximum number of processes does not require any actual process step(s).
Regarding claim 14:
The limitation “differential pressure to surroundings” is unclear because the term “surroundings” may be interpreted to have different meanings, including other internal portions of the air flow path or surrounding atmospheric pressure.
The term “blocking” is unclear because it suggests some potential physical blocking of the airflow path. It is best understood that the term is intended to refer to electronically “preventing” the process and will be treated as such for the sake of the current Office Action.
Further regarding claims 12 and 20, it is unclear what process step is actually performed to prevent the extraction process to only be performed by a user.
As discussed above for claim 21, it is unclear how the sensor performs a check as claimed.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The claim merely recites limitations that were more specifically incorporated into claim 1, such that claim 4 does not further limit the previously claimed method. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 10-12, 13, 14-19 and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Semeck, in view of Seasholtz et al. (US 20170049282).
With respect to claim 1, Semeck discloses:
Method of operating a base station (base station 10, Figs. 1, 2) for a cleaning device (cleaning device 20, 30, Fig. 1), wherein the base station is adapted to suck vacuumed material from (convey suction material from, lines 62-67) the cleaning device into a container (container 50G, Figs. 1, 2) of the base station during an extraction process (emptying of the cleaning equipment, lines 418-422; suction material from the chamber 20C and 30C of cleaning devices and into container 50G, lines 388-402);
The method comprising:
Determining a differential pressure value downstream from a container (See Annotated Fig. A, lines 160-167, 633-645) of a base station, that is configured to remove vacuumed materials from the cleaning device, relative to an ambient pressure by a pressure sensor (pressure gauge 10M, Fig. 2) of the base station;
Automatically determining, by a data processing device (30R) of the base station, a differential pressure value downstream from a container of the base station (at sensor 10X), relative to an ambient pressure (compared to atmospheric pressure in lines 591-594), wherein an absolute pressure downstream to the container (container 50G, Figs. 1, 2, lines 633 645) is measured by the pressure sensor (pressure gauge 10X, Fig. 2) before and during the extraction process (absolute pressure, which is related to and can be obtained from the ambient pressure, is determined by measuring pressure at the first measuring point S1 - before activating the fan 50Y/50J, which is located downstream of container 50G and controls suction of material into container 50G, lines 849-854; absolute pressure, which is related to and can be obtained from the differential pressure, is used - during suction mode by means of pressure gauge 10M, lines 712-717; suction material from the chamber 20C and 30C of cleaning devices and into container 50G, lines 388-402) to determine the differential pressure to surroundings (See Annotated Fig. A; pressure gauge 10M is designed as an absolute, differential, and relative pressure measuring device; lines 641-645, 1243-1246) or wherein the differential pressure to the surroundings is measured directly by the pressure sensor (pressure gauge 10X, Fig. 2; lines 102-107, 160-163).
Automatically determining, by the data processing device, and based at least on the differential pressure value, and a first limit value (lines 116-122) a level to which the container is filled (container 50G, Figs. 1, 2; lines 160-167) as a state of the base station and
Automatically determining, by the data processing device, and based at least on the differential pressure value and a second limit value a further state of the base station (lines 201-207 and 1000-1013, indicating that another limit value may determine that the connection between the cleaning device and the base station is not correct or has a leak).
However, Semeck does not explicitly teach the extraction process is automatically interrupted and/or the performance of the extraction process by the base station is automatically prevented depending on the determined state.
However, Seasholtz discloses:
An extraction process (par. 0037, suction material into the tank) is automatically interrupted and/or an operation of a base station (vacuum cleaner 20, Figs. 1-6) is automatically blocked depending on a determined state (par. 0038; automatic shutoff assembly 80 interrupts the electrical supply to the motor when fluid 81 in the tank rises to a level causing the float 84 to rise).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an operation of a base station automatically blocked when a maximum number of extraction processes with a container, in a predefined filling level without emptying the container, or tank, is reached - in order to prevent fluid level in the container from rising above to major internal components, such as a vacuum impeller (par. 0004), and cause damage which would result in equipment inoperability as stated by Seasholtz.
With respect to claim 4, Semeck discloses:
Method according to claim 1, wherein the differential pressure is compared with a limit value to determine the filling level of the container (container 50G, Figs. 1, 2) or the further state of the base station (base station 10, Figs. 1, 2; lines 119-122, 182-188).
With respect to claim 5, Semeck discloses:
Method according to claim 1, wherein based at least on (lines 688-691, 712-724) the pressure sensor (pressure gauge 10M, Fig. 2) and/or the differential pressure value it is determined as a further state of the base station (base station 10, Figs. 1, 2; lines 142-152) whether an intake tract of the base station is clogged (lines 131-147).
With respect to claim 6, Semeck discloses:
Method according to claim 1, wherein during one or more of an extraction process (emptying of the cleaning equipment, lines 418-422; suction material from the chamber 20C and 30C of cleaning devices and into container 50G, lines 388-402) or with the cleaning device (cleaning device 20, 30, Fig. 1) connected to the base station and before or after an extraction process or without the cleaning device connected to the base station, the differential pressure is determined by the pressure sensor (pressure gauge 10M, Fig. 2) in order to locate a blockage (lines 160-171).
With respect to claim 10, the combination of Semeck and Seasholtz discloses the interruption or disabling of the extraction process depending on the determined state (claim 1), wherein it further would have been obvious that interruption or disabling of the extraction process would primarily include controlling the blower to be disabled, due to the blower creating the suction force for extraction.
With respect to claim 11, Semeck discloses:
Method according to claim 1, wherein a user is notified of the determined state (lines 119-122, 557-563).
With respect to claim 12, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Semeck teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses:
Method wherein the base station (base station 10, Figs. 1-2) performs an extraction process (emptying of the cleaning equipment, lines 418-422; suction material from the chamber 20C and 30C of cleaning devices and into container 50G, lines 388-402).
However, Semeck does not explicitly teach a method wherein, depending on the determined state, a new extraction process is performed only by a user input.
However, Seasholtz discloses:
Method wherein, depending on the determined state, (par. 0025; triggered by the upward movement of a float inside a wet/dry vacuum cleaner, switch to an off position) a new extraction process is performed only by user input (par. 0050, 0052; automatic shutoff assembly of the present disclosure allows a user to manually override its biasing force and return switch to the ON position).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a new extraction process performed only by user input - in order allow flexibility to a user in choosing when to suspend an automatic shutoff functionality (par. 0026) as stated by Seasholtz - and not rely solely on programmed functions automated by a base station or vacuum cleaner.
With respect to claim 13, Semeck discloses:
Method according to claim 1, wherein, when a predefined filling level is reached, the maximum number of extraction processes still possible without emptying the container (container 50G, Figs. 1, 2) is limited (lines 913-918; “at least one process is still available”, suggests that the remaining processes are limited to one; also lines 740-743 disclose that the suction process should not be carried out once the pressure reaches or exceeds a limit value, which is also considered to be equivalent to limiting the maximum number of processes to zero).
With respect to claim 14, Semeck discloses:
Method of operating a base station (base station 10, Figs. 1, 2) for a cleaning device (cleaning device 20, 30, Fig. 1),
The method comprising:
Automatically determining, by the data processing device, a differential pressure value downstream from a container (container 50G, Figs. 1, 2) of a base station, that is configured to remove vacuumed materials from the cleaning device (emptying of the cleaning equipment, lines 418-422; suction material from the chamber 20C and 30C of cleaning devices and into container 50G, lines 388-402), relative to an ambient pressure (See Annotated Fig. A, lines 160-167, 633-645) by a pressure sensor (pressure gauge 10M, Fig. 2) of the base station; wherein the pressure is measured directly or indirectly by the pressure sensor, and the operation being stopped or prevented based on the determined state, as discussed for claim 1, and Semeck further discloses that,
When a predefined filling level is reached, limiting a maximum number of extraction processes that remain without emptying the container (container 50G, Figs. 1, 2; lines 913-918; “at least one process is still available”, suggests that the remaining processes are limited to one; also lines 740-743 disclose that the suction process should not be carried out once the pressure reaches or exceeds a limit value, which is also considered to be equivalent to limiting the maximum number of processes to zero).
With respect to claim 15, Semeck discloses:
Method according to claim 14, wherein the absolute pressure downstream to the container (container 50G, Figs. 1, 2, lines 633-645) is measured by the pressure sensor (pressure gauge 10M, Fig. 2) before and during the extraction process (emptying of the cleaning equipment, lines 418-422; suction material from the chamber 20C and 30C of cleaning devices and into container 50G, lines 388-402) to determine the differential pressure to the surroundings (See Annotated Fig. A; 10M is designed as an absolute, differential, and relative pressure measuring device; lines 641-645, 1243-1246).
With respect to claim 16, Semeck discloses:
Method according to claim 14, wherein the differential pressure to the surroundings is measured directly by the pressure sensor (pressure gauge 10M, Fig. 2; lines 102-107, 160-163).
With respect to claim 17, Semeck discloses:
Method according to claim 14, wherein the differential pressure is compared with a limit value to determine the filling level of the container (container 50G, Figs. 1, 2) and/or the further state of the base station (base station 10, Figs. 1, 2; lines 119-122, 182-188).
With respect to claim 18, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated.
Semeck teaches all the limitations of claim 14 and further discloses:
Method wherein the base station (base station 10, Figs. 1, 2) performs extraction processes (emptying of the cleaning equipment, lines 418-422; suction material from the chamber 20C and 30C of cleaning devices and into container 50G, lines 388-402) with the container (container 50G, Figs. 1, 2).
However, Semeck does not explicitly teach the operation of the base station is automatically blocked when the maximum number of extraction processes with the container in the predefined filling level without emptying the container is reached.
However, Seasholtz discloses:
A performance of an extraction process (par. 0037, suction material into the tank) by the base station (vacuum cleaner 20, Figs. 1-6) is automatically blocked when a maximum number of extraction processes with the container in a predefined filling level without emptying the container (tank 22, Fig. 1) is reached (par. 0025, 0038).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an operation of the base station automatically blocked when a maximum number of extraction processes with a container, in a predefined filling level without emptying the container, or tank, is reached - in order to prevent fluid level in the container from rising above to major internal components, such as a vacuum impeller (par. 0004), and cause damage which would result in equipment inoperability as stated by Seasholtz.
With respect to claim 19, Semeck discloses:
Method according to claim 14, wherein a user is notified of the reaching of the predefined filling level (lines 119-122).
With respect to claim 20, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated.
Semeck teaches all the limitations of claim 14 and further discloses:
Method wherein the base station (base station 10, Figs. 1-2) performs an extraction process (emptying of the cleaning equipment, lines 418-422; suction material from the chamber 20C and 30C of cleaning devices and into container 50G, lines 388-402) with the container (container 50G, Figs. 1, 2).
However, Semeck does not explicitly teach the method wherein upon reaching the maximum number of extraction processes with the container in the predefined filling level, a new extraction process is performed only by a user input.
However, Seasholtz discloses:
Method wherein upon reaching a maximum number of extraction processes with the container in a predefined filling level, a new extraction process is performed only by user input (par. 0025; user to manually override the biasing force).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a new extraction process performed only by user input upon reaching a maximum number of extraction processes with the container - in order to provide a user with flexibility in choosing when to suspend an automatic shutoff functionality (par. 0025), as stated by Seasholtz.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Semeck in view of Seasholtz et al. (US 20170049282), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Cornelissen et al. (DE 102016125332), hereinafter Cornelissen.
With respect to claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Semeck teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses:
Method wherein exclusively (lines 688-691, 712-724) by means of using the pressure sensor (pressure gauge 10M, Fig. 2) and/or the differential pressure - it is determined there is a further state of the base station (base station 10, Figs. 1-2).
However, Semeck does not explicitly teach the pressure sensor and/or the differential pressure used to determine a further state of the base station whether a collection filter is not or is correctly inserted in the container and/or whether the container is not closed.
However, Cornelissen discloses:
A pressure sensor (switching element 11, Fig. 2) and/or a differential pressure which is used to determine a further state of a base station (vacuum cleaner 1, Figs. 1-2; lines 44-63) for whether a collection filter (filter bag 6, Fig. 2) is not inserted or not correctly inserted in a container (filter bag adapter 12, Fig. 2) and/or whether the container is not or is closed (lines 128-144; 303-324).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a pressure sensor and/or differential pressure to determine a further state of a base station for whether a collection filter, or filter bag, is not inserted or is not correctly inserted - in order for the user to troubleshoot and restore the base station, or vacuum cleaner, back into normal operation (lines 145-158), as stated by Cornelissen.
Claim(s) 21, 22, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Semeck and Seasholtz as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Morin et al. (CN 107405031), hereinafter Morin.
With respect to claim 21, the rejection of claim 20 is incorporated.
Semeck teaches all the limitations of claim 20 and further discloses:
Method wherein the container (container 50G, Figs. 1,2) is checked by means of the pressure sensor (pressure gauge 10M, Fig. 2) whether the container has been emptied (fill level of the container 50G can be determined by means of differential pressure measurement across points B1 and/or B2 using pressure sensor 10M; an emptied container 50G can thus be detected by a change in differential pressure from readings obtained by pressure sensor 10M; lines 921-926).
However, Semeck does not explicitly teach a method wherein after the user input, the extraction process by the base station is checked by means of the pressure sensor whether the container has been emptied.
However, Morin discloses:
Method wherein after a user input, a base station is checked by means of a pressure sensor whether a container has been emptied (lines 999-1005; emptying the robot, user input on the interface; lines 622-653; volume, capacity sensor comprises a pressure sensor).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to check whether or not the storage container has been emptied, by means of a pressure sensor, and after user input - in order to devise an optimal maintenance schedule with minimal conflicting tasks, and to especially set time aside for other tasks such as charging or discharging of the cleaning devices and base (lines 1000-1006), as stated by Morin.
With respect to claim 22, the rejection of claim 21 is incorporated.
Semeck teaches all the limitations of claim 21 and further discloses:
Method wherein performance of the extraction process (emptying of the cleaning equipment, lines 418-422; suction material from the chamber 20C and 30C of cleaning devices and into container 50G, lines 388-402) by the base station (base station 10, Figs. 1-2) includes a container (container 50G, Figs. 1, 2).
However, Semeck does not explicitly teach the performance of the extraction process by the base station is automatically blocked again if the container has not been emptied.
However, Seasholtz discloses:
A performance of the extraction process (par. 0037, suction material into the tank) by a base station (vacuum cleaner 20, Figs. 1-6) is automatically blocked again if a container (tank 22, Fig. 1) has not been emptied (par. 0025; user to manually override the biasing force; when user releases switch, it may return to the off position).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the operation of the base station automatically blocked again if the container has not been emptied - to serve as a failsafe measure in preventing fluid level in the container from rising above to major internal components, such as the vacuum impeller (par. 0004), and cause damage which would result in equipment inoperability as stated by Seasholtz.
With respect to claim 23, Semeck discloses:
Method according to claim 21 wherein, the extraction process (emptying of the cleaning equipment, lines 418-422; suction material from the chamber 20C and 30C of cleaning devices and into container 50G, lines 388-402) is carried out completely when the container (50G, Figs. 1, 2) has been emptied (emptying of the cleaning equipment, lines 418-422; suction material from the chamber 20C and 30C of cleaning devices and into container 50G, lines 388-402)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant first argues that the prior art does not read on the inventive concept that the pressure is read by a single sensor. However, the claims are not considered to be amended to require only a single sensor, but merely recite a sensor that detects a differential pressure. To the contrary of only using the differential pressure detected by a single sensor, the limitation “based at least on the differential pressure value…” suggests that additional information may be used to determine the fill level and “further state”. Even further, if the claimed were amended to define a single pressure sensor, lines 633-345 of Semeck recite that “the base station has… the pressure gauge [at] one or more measuring points” and “the pressure measuring device 10M is designed as an absolute pressure, differential pressure or relative pressure measuring device designed to be used at measuring point(s) B1 or B2”, which suggests that pressure may be determined at only a single point, using a differential pressure sensor, in the same manner as the applicant’s claimed invention. The applicant also similarly argues that Semeck does not determine the “further state” depending solely on the differential pressure, but again, the claim recites “based at least on the differential pressure”, which again allows for additional information, such as the volume flow disclosed by Semeck, to determine if there is a clog present or whether the cleaner is correctly connected to the base station.
The applicant also argues that Semeck does not disclose the concept of automatically deactivating or preventing operation, as claimed. However, as discussed above, Semeck does disclose that “sucking out is only possible if the measured differential pressure … is below the limit” in lines 927-928, and that “vacuuming… is only possible or the fan activated only when the cleaning device 30th correctly to the base station connected” in lines 1014-1016) which indicates that the disclosed method of Semeck also provides the function of interrupting and/or preventing operation of the base station.
The remainder of the arguments are moot because they address the suggested shortcomings of the secondary references teaching the limitations of claims 1 and 14, which are all anticipated by Semeck, as discussed above, wherein the Semeck reference does read on all claim limitations of amended claims 1, 14, and anticipating or making obvious all remaining claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN R MULLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4489. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at 571-272-8548. 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.
/BRYAN R MULLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723 18 October 2025