DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Claim Interpretation under 35 USC 112(f)
Applicant argues that energy storage device for providing electrical energy in claim 17 and a blocking element for securing the accessory device against removal from the receptacle in claim 15 are “common parlance by persons of skill in the pertinent art to designate structure” and that structure and/ or acts is/are included in the claims. This is not found persuasive. It is first noted that Applicant did not provide any evidence that either of the limitations are “common parlance” or how the claim provided “structure or acts”. Second, the three-prong test analysis is as follows:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
MPEP also states a list of non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f): "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for." Welker Bearing Co., v. PHD, Inc., 550 F.3d 1090, 1096, 89 USPQ2d 1289, 1293-94:
Claim 15 recites “element for” and claim 17 recites “device for”, both are explicitly called generic placeholders in the MPEP.
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”;
The generic placeholders are clearly modified with functional language, claim 15 recites “element for securing the accessory device against removal from the receptacle”, claim 17 recites “device for providing electrical energy”.
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The claims are devoid of any structure, i.e., neither the phrase “energy storage” nor the word “blocking” convey any structure.
Finally, Applicant only provided what it seems to be an opinion that the limitations are common parlance and that there is structure or acts in the claims. For these reasons the interpretation is still proper.
35 USC 103 Rejections
Argument: There are inherent problems with the primary reference
Applicant argues Damnkohler does not teach “a user application for processing cleaning-related information” because Damnkohler user application only receives, stores, and displays information that was already processed. In this case, Applicant seems to take the unreasonable position that a smartphone or tablet that receives, stores, and displays information, is not processing the data. Applicant is equating the “for processing” limitation to a specific manipulation of the cleaning tasks data/information to be performed by the user. Applicant is reminded that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. MPEP 2145 VI. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. MPEP 211.01 I. The BRI of “for processing” is the collection and manipulation of digital data to produce meaningful information (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_processing). In the case of Damnkohler, the additional element is a smartphone (or tablet) which receives and stores raw cleaning-related data (collection) from a communication network (cloud 24) for transmission and displaying (manipulation) to the user (conversion to meaningful information). The act of receiving, storing, and displaying data/information through the cloud is reasonably construed as “processing” the data. Furthermore, as evidence that Applicant’s position is unreasonable, Applicant’s own disclosure defines an embodiment where the specific manipulation of data/information is performed in a different remote data processing device 16 than where the user application of the accessory device 14 exists, and the user application only receives, stores, and displays the data/information [“Alternatively or in addition, in a preferred embodiment of the invention, provision is made for the cleaning system to comprise a data processing device which is spatially remotely arranged from the cleaning cart and from the accessory device and which is, or is capable of being brought, in communication connection with the accessory device, and for cleaning-related information of the user application program to be transferable from the accessory device to the data processing device and/or vice versa...the user can load the cleaning plan into the accessory device 14 via the user application program and store it in the user application program”]. Therefore, this argument is not found persuasive.
PNG
media_image1.png
438
632
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant further argues “[i]t would be illogical to transmit instructions from the control/operating elements to the additional device to then operate the cleaning device from there, as it is the control/operating elements which directly control/operate the cleaning device”. This contradicts Applicant’s own disclosure. Applicant also transmit instruction form the control/operating elements/knob to operate the additional device (smartphone) [see ¶ above, and see fig. 3 of both the instant application and Damnkohler below].
PNG
media_image2.png
500
771
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The smartphone [14 instant application; 104 Damnkohler] is used to interact with the control elements/knobs of the interaction device [140 instant application; 94 Damnkoher below]. Applicant own disclosure: “[i]n operation of the cleaning system 10, in particular of the cleaning cart 12, the knob 140 serves to operate the accessory device 14”. Similarly, Dahmokohler teaches “[t]he control element is, for example, a program selector switch for setting a cleaning program of the cleaning device and preferably comprises a rotary handle or is designed as such. The positioning in front of and preferably below the receptacle enables user-friendly operation of the rotary handle”. Therefore, this argument is not found persuasive.
Argument: Examiner’s analysis and rationale are not adequate
Applicant further argues that the modification will be a “downgrade” for Damnkohler, and the modification would allegedly require removal of elements from Damnkohler. This argument misses the point of the analysis. It is well-established that a determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements." In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332, 103 USPQ2d 1219, 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859, 225 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc)). The criterion being not whether the references could be physically combined but whether the claimed inventions are rendered obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a whole. See also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference, rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ 385, 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Nothing in the rejection is based on substituting the elements of Damnkohler for the elements of Deerberg. Applicant’s arguments are verbose in an apparent effort to complicate a simple combination. Following a simple 35 USC 103 analysis per MPEP 2141 II:
Determining the scope and content of the prior art;
An interaction unit including receptacle 108 and knob 94 for holding a tablet connected through the cloud 24 for displaying data of the cleaning apparatus of Damnkohler [“[t]he present invention makes it possible, for example, for display devices to be used by additional devices owned by the user, for example by smartphones and / or tablet computers”], and the cleaning cart with a communication device holder 2 to hold a tablet computer 3 for rapid collection of information from the internet of Deerberg [“the cleaning trolley includes a communication device holder 2 for receiving a mobile communication device 3, which is formed in the embodiment shown by a tablet computer, wherein the mobile communication device 3 is arranged captively in the communication device holder 2... Cleaning center sent, received messages from a cleaning center and / or connected to the Internet, for example, cleaning utensils If required, you can order directly or call up special cleaning instructions directly from the Internet.”].
Ascertaining the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art
There is no one single reference with an interaction unit, communication network, and tablet for a cleaning cart.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art
The level of ordinary skill is predictable by the fact that Deerbert explicitly teaches a cleaning cart with a holder for a tablet for rapid collection of information from the internet.
Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant further argues tangential nuisances, for example, the use of the combination in a carpeted floor, or that the user wouldn’t be able to use gloves while using a touchscreen. In response, the Examiner notes that a person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton. "KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. These nuisances are within the level of ordinary skill. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant further argues “[w]ere a person of ordinary skill to combine Dammkohler into Deerberg, they would be left with a cleaning device having interaction/control elements that operate a non-existent funcitonal unit (i.e., the scrubbing and squeegee units)”. This argument contradicts the previous “illogical argument”. As discussed above the interaction/control elements (knob) is controlling the smartphone or tablet in Dahmnkohler, therefore the combination will have the knob controlling the tablet in Deerberg. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
For the reasons discussed above the rejections below are still deemed proper.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
energy storage device for providing electrical energy for at least one of the interaction device and the accessory device in claim 17, and disclosed as a rechargeable battery or equivalents thereof;
a blocking element for securing the accessory device against removal from the receptacle, and disclosed as element 94 or equivalents thereof;
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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) 1-10, 12-13, 16, 18, 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Damnkohler WO 2020/016338 A in view of Deerberg WO 2019/092062 A1.
Regarding claims 1, 7, 30, Damnkohler teaches a cleaning system (fig. 1), comprising
an external accessory device 16 (fig. 3),
a frame 10 having rollers 54 for moving on a ground surface 32, and
an interaction device 90 having a hand-actuatable interaction element [76, 94, 98, 100, 102],
wherein the accessory device 16 is portably configured with a user application program for processing cleaning-related information being at least one of executably stored on the accessory device and operable via the accessory device [“display information relating to at least one of the following to be transmitted to the additional device:… Information regarding the past type of use, for example the place of use, the execution or omission of a cleaning job and / or the remaining type of use of the cleaning device; Instructions for the user to support cleaning, in particular for cleaning jobs and / or for optimizing residual use.”],
wherein the interaction device and the accessory device are coupleable with one another via a communication connection 160 (fig. 11), and
wherein, depending on an actuation of the interaction element by the user, input information for operation of the user application program is transmittable from the interaction device to the accessory device and is processable by the accessory device [“control element 94 is arranged in the control panel 90, in the present case a main control element”].
Regarding claim 7 and 30, Damnkohler further teaches wherein the interaction element is a rotary toggle knob 94 [see fig. below, “[t]he control element is, for example, a program selector switch”].
PNG
media_image3.png
578
834
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Damnkolher does not teach a cleaning cart, and at least one receptacle for at least one of receiving and carrying cleaning utensils.
Deerberg teaches a cleaning system comprising an external accessory device and a cleaning cart [“[t]he invention relates to a cleaning trolley and a frame for it”] comprising a frame having rollers for moving on a ground surface, and at least one receptacle for at least one of receiving and carrying cleaning utensils [a receptacle is implied by the excerpt: “utensils can be transported effortlessly and comfortably by the user”].
The only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is that the prior art does not incorporate the cleaning system of Dahmnkohler and the cleaning cart of Deerberg into a single combined apparatus. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities to incorporate both the cleaning system and the cleaning cart into a combined apparatus before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. No inventive effort would have been required. Furthermore, the resulting combined apparatus would yield predictable results. Even in the context of a combined apparatus, the features of the cleaning system of Damnkohler and the cleaning cart of Deerberg would be expected to work as intended, with each element in the combined apparatus performing the same function as it did separately. No new functionality would arise from the combination.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the cleaning system of Damnkohler and the cleaning cart of Deerberg to yield the predictable result of a cleaning cart with an accessory device for displaying cleaning instructions.
Regarding claim 2, Damnkohler further teaches wherein the accessory device 16 comprises at least one output unit in the form of a display unit, an audible output unit or a haptic output unit [smartphone 18 or tablet 20].
Regarding claim 3, Damnkohler further teaches wherein the accessory device 16 is a smartphone 18 or a tablet computer 20.
Regarding claim 4, Damnkohler further teaches wherein output information of the user application program is transmittable from the accessory device 16 to the interaction device 90 and wherein the interaction device 90 comprises an indication unit 102 for outputting indications to the user depending on the output information.
Regarding claim 5, Damnkohler further teaches wherein the indication is at least one of a visual, audible and a haptic indication unit 102.
Regarding claim 6, Damnkohler further teaches wherein the interaction element comprises or forms the indication unit 102.
Regarding claim 8, Damnkohler further teaches wherein the interaction element is or comprises a push button or a toggle button 100.
Regarding claim 9, Damnkohler further teaches a handle 76 device having at least one handle element for guiding the cleaning cart by a user.
Regarding claim 10, Damnkohler further teaches wherein the interaction element is arranged at or comprised by the handle device 76.
Regarding claim 12, Damnkohler further teaches a receiving unit having a receptacle 108 for receiving the accessory device 16.
Regarding claim 13, Damnkohler further teaches wherein the receptacle 108 is arranged at or comprised by the handle device 76.
Regarding claim 16, Damnkohler further teaches wherein a charging unit 158 (fig. 10) for charging the accessory device 16 is arranged at the receiving unit or wherein the receiving unit comprises a charging unit.
Regarding claim 18, Damnkohler further teaches wherein the cleaning system comprises a data processing device 22 which is spatially remotely arranged from the cleaning cart and from the accessory device and which is, or is bringable, in communication connection with the accessory device, and wherein cleaning-related information of the user application program is transferable from the accessory device to the data processing device and/or vice versa [“[t]he additional devices 16 can be in a communication connection with the data processing device 22, for example via a mobile radio network and / or a data network such as the Internet”].
Claim(s) 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Damnkohler WO 2020/016338 A in view of Deerberg WO 2019/092062 A1 and in further view of Bruno US 2006/0053579.
Regarding claim 11, Damnkohler and Deerberg teach the invention as discussed above for claim but fail to teach wherein the handle device is releasably fixable to the frame of the cleaning cart.
Bruno teaches a releasable fixable [with fasteners 102] handle device 94 (fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the releaseable fixable handle device of Bruno with the cleaning system of Danmkohler and Deerberg in order to yield the predictable result of have a releasable handle in case of a need for replacement.
Claim(s) 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Damnkohler WO 2020/016338 A in view of Deerberg WO 2019/092062 A1 and in further view of Zaloom US 9,470,356.
Regarding claims 14-15, Damnkohler and Deerberg teach the invention as discussed above for claim but fail to teach wherein the receptacle is variable in size and wherein the receiving unit comprises a blocking element for securing the accessory device against removal from the receptacle.
Zaloom teaches analogous art reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of accommodating a smartphone and/or tablet. Zaloom teaches a receptacle (fig. 1) variable in size [with sliding arms 520] and a blocking element [per 112 f above, ledges 515] for securing the accessory device against removal from the receptacle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Zaloom receptacle and blocking element with Damnkohler and Deerberg cleaning system, in order to yield the predictable result of accommodating various sizes of smartphone and/or tablets while securing them against accidental removal.
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Damnkohler WO 2020/016338 A in view of Deerberg WO 2019/092062 A1 and in further view of Tannehill US 5,158,310.
Regarding claim 17, Damnkohler and Deerberg teach the invention as discussed above for claim but fail to teach an energy storage device for providing electrical energy for at least one of the interaction device and the accessory device.
Tannehill teaches a cart comprising an energy storage device [per 112f above, battery 266, fig. 17] for providing electrical energy for at least one of the interaction device and the accessory device 260.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the energy storage device of Tannehill with the cleaning system of Damnkohler and Deerberg, in order to yield the predictable result of re-charging the interactive device or the accessory device.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Carlos A. Rivera whose telephone number is (571)270-5697. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM -4PM.
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 on (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.
C. A. R.
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3723
/C. A. RIVERA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723