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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the elements in the claims are presented lacking clear symbols/legend/text to identify them without extensive referrals to the specification. Add them. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains exemplary language, “in some cases”, “In certain cases”. Remove this language.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required & must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9, 15-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Korcz et al (USPGPN 20120111597; hereinafter Kor)
Independent Claim 1, Kor discloses a charging system for an automatic swimming pool cleaner (APC)
[Applicant’s arguments rely on language solely recited in preamble recitations in the claims. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “for an automatic swimming cleaner” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.]
[In response to applicant's argument that “for an automatic swimming pool cleaner (APC), a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.]
(Figs. 1-15, esp. 5) comprises
an electrical contact (14, 12, see ¶’s [36, 38]) and a protection system configured to selectively prevent or allow contact with the electrical contact (20, cover).
Independent Claim 15, Kor discloses a charging system for an automatic swimming pool cleaner (APC)
[Applicant’s arguments rely on language solely recited in preamble recitations in the claims. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “for an automatic swimming cleaner” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.]
[In response to applicant's argument that “for an automatic swimming pool cleaner (APC), a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.]
(Figs. 1-15, esp. 5) comprises
an electrical contact (14, 12, see ¶’s [36, 38]) and a protection system for the electrical contact that covers or exposes the electrical contact (20, cover) based on a position of the APC (if the user decides to plug in the APC for being close, then they can open the cover based on the APC being close, as one of ordinary skill in the art understands).
Dependent Claim 2,Kor discloses the protection system comprises a protective cover(20)
Dependent Claim 4, Kor discloses the protective cover is movable between a covered position and an uncovered position relative to the electrical contact (compare Fig. 5 [open/uncovered] with Figs. 1-4 [covered])
Dependent Claim 16, Kor discloses the protection system is configured to cover the electrical contact based on an absence of the APC and expose the electrical contact based on a presence of the APC (if the user decides to plug in the APC for being close, then they can open the cover based on the APC being close, as one of ordinary skill in the art understands, where ¶’s [49-51] describes the cover as being biased closed)
Dependent Claim 17, Kor discloses the protection system comprises a protective cover movable between a covered position in which the protective cover covers the electrical contact and an uncovered position in which the electrical contact is exposed (compare Fig. 5 [open/uncovered] with Figs. 1-4 [covered])
Dependent Claims 5 and 18, Kor discloses the protective cover is biased towards the covered position (¶’s [49-51]).
Dependent Claim 6, Kor discloses the protection system is actuated (spring is an actuator, see ¶’s [49-51]).
Dependent Claim 7, Kor discloses the protection system comprises a rotating member (spring is an actuator to rotate cover via hinge 16, see ¶’s [49-51]).
Dependent Claim 9, Kor discloses the protection system is on a charging station of the charging system (if the device being charged has a plug to just plug into the outlet, then the outlet is the charging station)
Dependent Claim 20, Kor discloses a charging station, and wherein the electrical contact and protection system are on the charging station.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 10, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biber et al (USPGPN 20170127608) in view of Han (USPN 5646494)
Independent Claim 1, Biber teaches a charging system (Figs. 1-4) for an automatic swimming pool cleaner (APC, 10, ¶’s [03, 35]) comprises an electrical contact (54, ¶’s [43, 46])
Biber is silent to a protection system configured to selectively prevent or allow contact with the electrical contact.
Han teaches a protection system configured to selectively prevent or allow contact with the electrical contact (115 [esp. in Figs. 5 & 6] for contact 113 for analogous robot cleaner 1, see Figs. [3-7, 9, & 10], [Col 5 L18 to Col 6 L12 & Col 11 L50 to Col 21, esp. Col 5 L23-42]). Han teaches this cover serves to prevent the connecting terminal/contact 113 from being seen from the outside, which e.g. can provide improved aesthetics as one of ordinary skill in the art understands, but also nominally provide protection of the contact from external surfaces/pollutants [e.g. water, dust, sun, etc.].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Biber with Han to provide improved aesthetics and safety.
Independent Claim 15, Biber teaches a charging system (Figs. 1-4) for an automatic swimming pool cleaner (APC, 10, ¶’s [03, 35]) comprises an electrical contact (54, ¶’s [43, 46])
Biber is silent to a protection system for the electrical contact that covers or exposes the electrical contact based on a position of the AC (automatic/robotic cleaner).
Han teaches a protection system for the electrical contact that covers or exposes the electrical contact based on a position of the AC (115 [esp. in Figs. 5 & 6] for contact 113 for analogous robot cleaner 1, see Figs. [3-7, 9, & 10], [Col 5 L18 to Col 6 L12 & Col 11 L50 to Col 21, esp. Col 5 L23-42], where being in an attached position to the charger/base station/power source supplier 110 is the position in which it is exposed, and when not attached, it is not exposed). Han teaches this cover serves to prevent the connecting terminal/contact 113 from being seen from the outside, which e.g. can provide improved aesthetics as one of ordinary skill in the art understands, but also nominally provide protection of the contact from external surfaces/pollutants [e.g. water, dust, sun, etc.].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Biber with Han to provide improved aesthetics and safety.
Dependent Claim 2, the combination of Biber and Han teaches the protection system comprises a protective cover (115 of Han for 113).
Dependent Claim 3, the combination of Biber and Han teaches the protective cover comprises a projection portion with a surface configured to engage the APC (115 compare Figs. 5 & 6 shows it projecting in Fig. 6, Col 3 L63 to Col 4 L3 of Han).
Dependent Claim 4, the combination of Biber and Han teaches the protective cover is movable between a covered position and an uncovered position relative to the electrical contact (115 compare Figs. 5 & 6 shows it projecting in Fig. 6, Col 3 L63 to Col 4 L3 of Han).
Dependent Claim 6, the combination of Biber and Han teaches the protection system is actuated (as cited above for Han, it is actuated).
Dependent Claim 7, the combination of Biber and Han teaches the protection system comprises a rotating member (as cited above for Han, 116 is rotated to actuate 115).
Dependent Claim 10, the combination of Biber and Han teaches the protection system is on the APC (corresponding APC contact of Biber is on AC of Han).
PNG
media_image1.png
530
282
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Dependent Claim 17, the combination of Biber and Han teaches the protection system comprises a protective cover movable between a covered position in which the protective cover covers the electrical contact and an uncovered position in which the electrical contact is exposed (115 compare Figs. 5 & 6 shows it projecting in Fig. 6, Col 3 L63 to Col 4 L3 of Han).
Claims 5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biber in view of Han, further in view of Sivik et al (USPGPN 20110021049; noted that this name is being used instead of the longer co-inventor Ramasubramanian)
Dependent Claims 5 and 18, the combination of Biber and Han teaches a protective cover for a robot/automatic cleaner.
Biber is silent to the protective cover is biased towards the covered position.
Sivik teaches the protective cover is biased towards the covered position (¶’s [11, 44] describes biasing a stopper/protective-cover in an extended/covered position when unmated). Sivik teaches this stopper-seal serves to protect the contacts from degradation due to exposure to water (¶’s [03, 09, 56, 57]), where one of ordinary skill in the art understands that by being normally covered/closed, it can more reliably ensure that the contacts are covered when the robot is not charging.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Biber in view of Han with Sivik to provide improved contact protection and reliability.
Claims 8, 9, 16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biber in view of Han, further in view of Dyke et al (USPGPN 20120266914)
Dependent Claim 16, Biber teaches an APC (battery powered thus electric vehicle)
Biber is silent to the protection system is configured to cover the electrical contact based on an absence of the electric vehicle and expose the electrical contact based on a presence of the electric vehicle.
Dyke teaches the protection system is configured to cover the electrical contact based on an absence of the electric vehicle and expose the electrical contact based on a presence of the electric vehicle (abstract, Figs. [1-10, esp. 2-4], ¶’s [18, 25, 28-35, 37-39, 41, 42, 44, 45, 52, 53], esp. 28-35]; cleaned at least upon removal of the electric vehicle referring to when the contact is put back on the charging station, whereby it is covered, and uncovered by the cleaning apparatus to connect to the electric vehicle to charge; it is noted that the applicant did not claim that the system automates the process of covering/exposing, only that is configured to do so). Dyke teaches this service serves to help improved life, efficiency, & costs, & reduced risk of overheating (i.e. improved safety), see ¶[33].
Dependent Claims 8 and 19, Biber is silent to a cleaning device configured to selectively clean the electrical contact (with respect to [wrt] claim 8), and the protection system is configured to clean the electrical contact in response to the electric vehicle being received by or removed from a charging station (wrt claim 19).
Dyke teaches a cleaning device configured to selectively clean the electrical contact and the protection system is configured to clean the electrical contact in response to the electric vehicle being received by or removed from a charging station (abstract, Figs. [1-10, esp. 2-4], ¶’s [18, 25, 28-35, 37-39, 41, 42, 44, 45, 52, 53], esp. 28-35]; cleaned at least upon removal of the electric vehicle referring to when the contact is put back on the charging station). Dyke teaches this service serve to help improved life, efficiency, and costs, and reduced risk of overheating (i.e. improved safety), see ¶[33]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Biber in view of Han with Dyke to provide improved costs, efficiency, life, and safety.
Dependent Claims 9 and 20, Biber is silent to the protection system is on a charging station of the charging system (with respect to [wrt] claim 9), and a charging station, and wherein the electrical contact and protection system are on the charging station (wrt claim 20).
Dyke teaches the protection system is on a charging station of the charging system (abstract, Figs. [1-10, esp. 2-4], ¶’s [28-35], where having cleaner contacts on either the charger or the robot, or both, will still provide the same benefits, as Dyke teaches this protective operation on the charging station serve to help improved life, efficiency, and costs, and reduced risk of overheating (i.e. improved safety), see ¶[33]. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art understands by having this extra mechanism on the charging station instead of the APC/AC, it serves to reduce the weight, which can serve to improve the efficiency of the battery power use for the APC/AC.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Biber in view of Han with Dyke to provide improved costs, efficiency, life, and safety.
Claims 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biber et al (USPGPN 20170127608) in view of Dyke et al (USPGPN 20120266914)
Independent Claim 11, Biber teaches a charging system (Figs. 1-4) for an automatic swimming pool cleaner (APC, 10, ¶’s [03, 35]) comprises an electrical contact (54, ¶’s [43, 46])
Biber is silent to a protection system configured to selectively clean the electrical contact.
Dyke teaches a protection system configured to selectively clean the electrical contact (abstract, Figs. [1-10, esp. 2-4], ¶’s [18, 25, 28-35, 37-39, 41, 42, 44, 45, 52, 53], esp. 28-35]; cleaned at least upon removal of the electric vehicle referring to when the contact is put back on the charging station). Dyke teaches this service serve to help improved life, efficiency, and costs, and reduced risk of overheating (i.e. improved safety), see ¶[33]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Biber with Dyke to provide improved costs, efficiency, life, and safety.
Dependent Claim 13, the combination of Biber and Dyke teaches a charging station comprising a base, wherein the protection system comprises a cleaning device recessed into the base for selectively cleaning the electrical contact (Dyke ¶’s [29-33, esp. 29] describes 130 being the recessed part of the base holding 215).
Dependent Claim 14, the combination of Biber and Dyke teaches the protection system comprises a protective cover, and wherein a cleaning device is on the protective cover for selectively cleaning the electrical contact (as cited above for Dykes, 225 is on 220 for cleaning the electrical contact).
Claims 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biber in view of Dyke, further in view of Han (USPN 5646494)
Dependent Claim 12, the combination of Biber and Dyke teaches the APC
Biber is silent to the protection system is on the Automatic Cleaner/Vacuum.
Han teaches the protection system is on the Automatic Cleaner/Vacuum configured to selectively prevent or allow contact with the electrical contact (115 [esp. in Figs. 5 & 6] for contact 113 for analogous robot cleaner 1, see Figs. [3-7, 9, & 10], [Col 5 L18 to Col 6 L12 & Col 11 L50 to Col 21, esp. Col 5 L23-42]). Han teaches this cover serves to prevent the connecting terminal/contact 113 from being seen from the outside, which e.g. can provide improved aesthetics as one of ordinary skill in the art understands, but also nominally provide protection of the contact from external surfaces/pollutants [e.g. water, dust, sun, etc.].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Biber in view of Dyke with Han to provide improved aesthetics and safety.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN T TRISCHLER whose telephone number is (571)270-0651. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30A-3:30P (often working later), M-F, ET, Flexible. 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, Drew Dunn can be reached at 5712722312. 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.
/JOHN T TRISCHLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859