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 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.
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, 3, 4, 11, 14, 17, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2008/0178412 A1 [Kiter] in view of US 2020/0254122 A1 [Starkweather], and further in view of US 2021/0346552 A1 [Eastep].
Regarding Claim 1:
Kiter teaches a pet care robot station (this preamble limitation is given weight to the extent that it indicates that the station must be sufficiently large to accommodate a pet care robot, and in this case, the shopping cart sterilizer of Kiter is so sized) comprising:
a housing comprising an entrance (Fig. 1 (132)) configured to allow a pet care robot to enter and exit (See Fig. 1), and
an accommodating space configured to accommodate the pet care robot (Fig. 1 (102)),
wherein the accommodated space comprises a cleaning space including a cleaning unit with which to spray cleanser on an outer surface of the part care robot (Fig. 1 (106, 108), paras 17-19), and
a sterilizing space (Fig. 1 (112)) including an UV lamp with which to sterilize the pet care robot via UV light (Fig.1 (160), para 21).
However, Kiter fails to teach:
a door in the housing and configured to open and close the entrance; or
that the sterilizing space is partitioned by a partition wall from the cleaning space, wherein the housing includes a robot through hole provided in the partition wall between the cleaning space and the sterilizing space and configured to allow the pet care robot to pass through the robot through hole.
Starkweather teaches using doors and walls, both types of partitions, to open and close chambers and allow said chambers to be sealed from other areas. Para 45. In light of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of the invention to add the doors of Starkweather placed at the entrance and exit of the drying chamber (110) and UV chamber (112) of Kiter. Such a modification would yield the above noted features not taught by Kiter. One would have been motivated to perform such a modification since it would provide a system wherein the fluids and UV light are contained and prevented from spilling out.
Furthermore, Eastep describes a UV system (para 33) wherein the UV irradiation area (Fig. 1 (108)) is set off from other areas by a partition (104) and a door (112) that fills a through hole. Eastep explains that the partition defines the space, and the door allows entry thereto. Para 30. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to add the partition, through hole, and door of Eastep between the drying chamber (110) and UV chamber (112) of Kiter. One would have been motivated to do so since this would better define the parameters of and control access between the chambers of Kiter.
Regarding Claim 3:
The above modified invention teaches the pet care robot station of claim 1, wherein the accommodating space comprises a reflective material on an inner wall of the accommodating space and configured to reflect the UV light. Starkweather (720), paras 77-78.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of the invention to add the reflective units of Starkweather to the above modified invention. One would have been motivated to perform such a modification since it would provide a system efficient use of UV light.
Regarding Claim 4:
The above modified invention teaches the pet care robot station of claim 1, wherein the door comprises a reflective material on a surface of the door, the surface facing inside of the accommodating space and configured to reflect the UV light. Starkweather (720) on door (719), paras 77-78.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of the invention to add the reflective units of Starkweather to the door of the above modified invention. One would have been motivated to perform such a modification since it would provide a system efficient use of UV light.
Regarding Claim 11:
The above modified invention teaches the pet care robot station of claim 1, wherein the cleaning unit comprises a cleaning nozzle configured to spray a cleanser onto a surface of the pet care robot. Kiter Fig. 1 (138, 150, 152).
Regarding Claim 14:
Kiter teaches an inner housing of a pet care robot station (this preamble limitation is given weight to the extent that it indicates that the station must be sufficiently large to accommodate a pet care robot, and in this case, the shopping cart sterilizer of Kiter is so sized), the inner housing comprising:
at least one wall in a shape of a box that forms an accommodating space (Fig. 1 (102)), the box including an opening through which a pet care robot can enter and exit the accommodating space (Fig. 1 (132));
the accommodating space configured to accommodate the pet care robot (Fig. 1 (102)),
wherein the accommodated space comprises a cleaning space including a cleaning unit with which to spray cleanser on an outer surface of the part care robot (Fig. 1 (106, 108), paras 17-19), and
a sterilizing space (Fig. 1 (112)) including an UV lamp with which to sterilize the pet care robot via UV light (Fig.1 (160), para 21).
However, Kiter fails to teach
However, Kiter fails to teach:
a door in the housing and configured to open and close the entrance; or
that the sterilizing space is partitioned by a partition wall from the cleaning space, wherein the housing includes a robot through hole provided in the partition wall between the cleaning space and the sterilizing space and configured to allow the pet care robot to pass through the robot through hole.
Starkweather teaches using doors and walls, both types of partitions, to open and close chambers and allow said chambers to be sealed from other areas. Para 45. In light of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of the invention to add the doors of Starkweather placed at the entrance and exit of the drying chamber (110) and UV chamber (112) of Kiter. Such a modification would yield the above noted features not taught by Kiter. One would have been motivated to perform such a modification since it would provide a system wherein the fluids and UV light are contained and prevented from spilling out.
Furthermore, Eastep describes a UV system (para 33) wherein the UV irradiation area (Fig. 1 (108)) is set off from other areas by a partition (104) and a door (112) that fills a through hole. Eastep explains that the partition defines the space, and the door allows entry thereto. Para 30. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to add the partition, through hole, and door of Eastep between the drying chamber (110) and UV chamber (112) of Kiter. One would have been motivated to do so since this would better define the parameters of and control access between the chambers of Kiter.
Regarding Claims 17 and 19:
The above modified inventions teach the station of claim 1 and the housing of claim 14, wherein the opening/entrance is opened toward a forward direction of the housing. See Kiter Fig. 1.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiter in view of Starkweather and Eastep as applied above and further in view of US 5,440,216 B2 [Kim].
Regarding Claim 7:
The above modified invention teaches the pet care robot station of claim 1, but fails to teach the station further comprising a charger in the accommodating space and configured to charge the pet care robot.
Kim teaches a charging station for a cleaning robot (Fig. 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to add the charging station of Kim to an internal space of Kiter. One would have been motivated to do since this would facilitate recharging for a device inside the sanitization station.
Regarding Claim 8:
The modified invention of claim 7 teaches the pet care robot station of claim 7, further comprising:
a sensor configured to detect a location of the pet care robot (Kim 8:11-21); and
a processor configured to guide the pet care robot from the detected location to be located in contact with the charger (Kim 8:64-9:20).
Regarding Claim 9:
The above modified invention teaches the pet care robot station of claim 1, but fails to teach that the housing comprises a wheel guide on a bottom of the housing, the wheel guide to guide the pet care robot to a charger in the accommodating space.
Kim teaches a charging station for a cleaning robot (Fig. 10) including a wheel guide on a bottom of the housing (Fig. 10 (158)), the wheel guide to guide the pet care robot to a charger in the accommodating space (8:21-25)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to add the charging station and associated wheel guide of Kim to the internal space of Kiter. One would have been motivated to do since this would facilitate recharging for a device inside the sanitization station.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6, 10, 13, 16, 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejections of record have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WYATT A STOFFA whose telephone number is (571)270-1782. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0700-1600 EST.
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, ROBERT KIM can be reached at 571 272 2293. 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.
WYATT STOFFA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881