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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Claim 5 recites the limitation “wherein the washing liquid enters the nozzle within 2 seconds”. The specification fails to provide any antecedent basis for this limitation. Paragraph [0013] of the specification teaches a step of supplying washing liquid for a period of two seconds, but a period during which liquid is supplied is different than the claimed time limit for the liquid to enter the nozzle.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-5 are 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.
It is unclear if the limitation in claim 1 of “wherein each of the vertical guides has a toothed belt disposed therein, the toothed belt being mounted on toothed pulleys arranged in upper and lower parts of the vertical guide, the upper toothed pulley being connected to an electric motor” require the presence of separate toothed belts, pulleys, and motors in each vertical guide or would be satisfied by a single belt and motor associated with pulleys in each guide. Similarly, the limitation of “limit switches configured to switch a polarity of the electric motors and switch off the window cleaning device” could be interpreted as requiring each of the limit switches to be capable of both switching a polarity of the electric motors and switching off the window cleaning device, or as being satisfied by each switch performing one of the claimed functions.
Claims 2-5 depend from claim 1 and are likewise rejected as indefinite.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “wherein the washing liquid enters the nozzle within 2 seconds”. Because the limitation fails to establish a point at which to start measuring the 2 seconds, the claim is indefinite.
For purposes of examination, claims 1-5 will be interpreted as best understood by the examiner.
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 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai et al. (CN 111622651, "Cai") in view of Fernandez et al. (EP 2730470, "Fernandez").
1. Cai teaches an automated window cleaning device comprising:
a window frame (24) with glass (window can include glass, see Cai Translation [0014]);
a lifting mechanism mounted on the outside of a window (See Cai figs. 1 and 6);
a washing liquid supply mechanism (combination of water supply 1, valve 2, pump 3, and nozzle 4, see Cai fig. 1 and Cai Translation [0010] and [0018]) and a control unit (21, Cai fig. 1 and Cai Translation [0018]);
wherein the lifting mechanism comprises two vertical guides fixed parallel to each other along left and right edges of the window frame (vertical guides holding belts 9,10, see Cai fig. 1);
wherein each of the vertical guides has a toothed belt disposed therein (synchronous belts 9,10 are disposed in vertical side portions, see Cai fig. 1 and Cai Translation [0009]; synchronous belts are known in the art as a specific type of toothed belt), the toothed belt being mounted on toothed pulleys (belts 9,10 are mounted on top pulleys 5,6 and bottom pulleys 11,12, see Cai fig. 6) arranged in upper and lower parts of the vertical guide (5,6,11,12 are in upper and lower portions of the guide frame, see Cai figs. 1 and 6),
the upper toothed pulley being connected to an electric motor (5,6, are connected to electric motors, see Cai fig. 1 and Cai Translation [0009]);
wherein the toothed belt is encircled by a sliding block (7,8) connected to a wiper blade (13) and a magnet (28, see Cai figs. 1-3 and Cai Translation [0018]);
wherein, at the bottom and top of the left vertical guide, there are limit switches (hall effect position sensors 30 and 29, see Cai fig. 6 and Cai Translation [0012], [0019], and [0031]) configured to switch a polarity of the electric motors (switches 29 and 30 control travel direction of cleaning mechanism, see Cai Translation [0009] and [0031]) and switch off the window cleaning device (returning to a non-working position, Cai Translation [0031]);
wherein a nozzle (4) for spraying a washing liquid to a glass surface is installed in the center of an upper horizontal profile of the window frame (see Cai fig. 1 and Cai Translation [0010]);
wherein the washing liquid supply mechanism comprises a channel for supplying the washing liquid to the nozzle, a pump, and a washing liquid reservoir (liquid from water supply 1 is supplied to nozzle 4 via pump 3, which is located a distance from nozzle 4, see Cai fig. 1 and Cai translation [0010] and [0031]; water supply 1 must be connected with some sort of water source, which would fall within the broadest reasonable meaning of the claimed washing liquid reservoir, and because there is a distance between pump 3 and nozzle 4, Cai implicitly teaches the presence of a channel between the two); and
wherein a window cleaning process is initiated by the control unit which also regulates the amount and time of supply of the washing liquid from the pump to the nozzle (21 controls both of flow of water and cleaning process, see Cai Translation [0031]).
Cai does not explicitly disclose that the washing liquid supply mechanism and control unit are arranged inside a room; that the wiper blade comprises a magnet; or that the sliding block comprises an aluminum fork into which two radial bearings are inserted.
However, it has been held that “in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” MPEP § 2144.01, citing In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968). Furthermore, “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007) “[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. Office personnel may also take into account “the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Although Cai does not specifically teach where the washing liquid supply mechanism or control unit would be arranged, one of ordinary skill would have understood that structural elements should be arranged inside some space rather than exposed to the elements where they would face an increased risk of corrosion, wear, or damage from incidental contact. Consequently, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to position the washing liquid supply mechanism and control unit in an enclosed space such as a room to reduce those risks.
Furthermore, although Cai does not teach that the wiper blade comprises a magnet, it does teach the presence of a magnet in the system. It has been held that where the sole difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is the particular placement of an element, the particular placement of that element is—absent some indication that changing the position of the element would have modified the operation of the device—an obvious matter of design choice. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). Because moving the positions of the magnets and associated sensors such that the magnets were a part of the wiper blade rather than the carrier would not change the operation of the device, such a modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date.
Finally, although Cai does not teach the claimed fork including radial bearings, Fernandez teaches an automated window cleaning device (1, see Fernandez fig. 3) comprising wiper (2) attached to a sliding block (5) that moves along a toothed belt (16) (see Fernandez figs. 3 and 19 and [0048]), wherein the sliding block comprises a fork (5 has a forked shape, see Fernandez figs. 8-13) into which a plurality of radial bearings are inserted (5 includes plurality of rollers 14, see Fernandez figs 8-13 and 19). Fernandez further teaches that aluminum is a suitable material for use in components of a window cleaning device (Fernandez [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the window cleaning device of Cai according to the teachings from Fernandez regarding the structure for a sliding block attaching a wiper to a toothed belt, such that the sliding block comprised a fork made from a suitable material such as aluminum into which two radial bearings were inserted, as doing so represents the simple substitution of one known method for connecting a sliding block to a toothed belt for another, the results of such a substitution being predictable to one of ordinary skill.
3. Cai as modified teaches the automated window cleaning device of claim 1, wherein the wiper blade has a position capable of being adjusted in reach depending on a depth of the window (wiper angle is positionable between active and inactive positions, and wiper includes a thin portion at a base that would allow the wiper to flex based to have different reach depending on a depth of the window, see Cai fig. 9).
4. Cai as modified teaches the automated window cleaning device of claim 1, wherein the wiper blade has a length equal to a width of the glass in the window frame (wiper 13 is long enough to cover width of window, see Cai fig. 1).
5. Cai as modified teaches the automated window cleaning device of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach that the washing liquid enters the nozzle within 2 seconds. However, during operation of the device of Cai as modified, and with a proper selection of when the measuring period was started, the device would be capable of being operated such that the washing liquid entered the nozzle within 2 seconds. For instance, operating the device before the water line between the pump and nozzle had a chance to drain would result in almost no lag between the pump moving more water and water entering the nozzle. Consequently, Cai as modified teaches the device of claim 5.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai in view of Fernandez as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stout (US 0661088), Hunt (US 1352369), Case (US 1462568), Exley (US 1802078), and/or Dutertre (US 10405495).
2. Cai as modified teaches the automated window cleaning device of claim 1, wherein the wiper blade is made of a square tube (tube connecting wiper 13 to sliding blocks 7,8 has four squared corners, see Cai figs. 3-5) on which the magnet (magnet would be positioned on the tube as part of the modification) and a framed rubber wiper (26, see Cai fig. 9 and Cai Translation [0018]). Cai as modified does not teach that the wiper has adjusting washers fixed thereto, ensuring a snug fit of the rubber wiper to the glass surface.
However, the concept of providing spacing adjustment elements to adjust the distance between a cleaning element and a surface being cleaned to ensure that a cleaning element continues to operate even as it is worn down by use is known in the cleaning and scraping arts. See, e.g. Stout (figs. 1-2 and 1:99-2:3), Hunt (fig. 1 and 1:54-69), Case (figs. 1-4, 1:9-31, and 1:50-109), Exley (figs. 2-4 and 2:20-24), and Dutertre (figs. 2-4 and 5:46-6:42).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the cleaning arts before the effective filing date to have further modified the device of Cai as modified according to the techniques taught by Stout, Hunt, Case, Exley, and/or Dutertre for adjusting cleaning element displacement such that the wiper had adjusting washers fixed thereto, capable of being used to ensure a snug fit of the rubber wiper to the glass surface, as doing so represents the use of a known technique (the inclusion of adjusting spacers or washers to compensate for cleaning element wear taught by Stout, Hunt, Case, Exley, and/or Dutertre) to improve a similar devices (the claimed invention and the devices of Stout, Hunt, Case, Exley, and/or Dutertre all remove material by mechanical action, the mechanical action resulting in wear on the cleaning element that would necessitate the adjustment of a position of the cleaning element to ensure continued functionality), the results of such a modification being predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN R ZAWORSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7804. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-5:00, Fridays 9:00-1:00.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at (571)-272-4475. 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.
/JONATHAN R ZAWORSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights