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 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: “moving unit”; “mover”; “first switching member” and second switching member”, “sweeping state switching assembly”.
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 § 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 60-63, 65, 66, 72-79 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.
Regarding claim 60, it is unclear what is meant by “at least part of the mopping state switching assembly including the driving motor”. It is unclear if this is referring to at least part of the mopping state switching assembly, but also specifying that the mopping state switching assembly includes the driving motor; or if this is referring the driving motor and also referring to another part of the mopping state switching assembly apart from the driving motor; or if only the driving motor would read on the limitation since the driving motor is a part of the mopping state switching assembly.
Claim 76 is 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 76, the claim recites “a rotation”. It is unclear if the “switch” occurs by having something rotate or if “rotation manner” refers to the fact that the switch occurs in a manner where the device rotates between (switches between) the different positions.
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.
Claim(s) 60, 65 and 80 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (JP 2019141318A) and in view of Koselka et al (US 6741054).
Regarding claims 60 and 80, Watanabe discloses a cleaning robot (see figures; see translation for all citations below), comprising:
a body 1;
a moving unit/mover (line 2 of description: “driving device”), configured to support the body and drive the cleaning robot to move on a surface of a working region;
a mopping unit/mop 3 configured to perform a preset mopping action (abstract), the mopping unit including a mopping working head and a mopping state switching assembly/mopping state switch, the mopping working head including a mop board configured to mount a wiping member, the mopping state switching assembly including:
a first switching member (rail 12 on left) and a second switching member (rail 12 on right), the first switching member and the second switching member connected to the mop board 3, the first switching member collaborating with the second switching member to drive the mop board to move up and down along the direction perpendicular to the working surface (see figures); and
a connection member/rod 10 configured to drive at least one part of the first switching member and at least one part of the second switching member to simultaneously move up and down in the direction perpendicular to the working surface (see figures and paragraphs 12-13 of page 2) the connection member/rod 10 configured to connect the first switching member, the second switching member, and a driving motor 8; the driving motor 8 connected to the mop board (indirectly connected) and configured to move together with the mop board (when driving motor moves, this actuates mop board to move; i.e. they move at the same time and therefore interpreted as moving together; note connection to gear box which makes clear that the motor has moving parts; no requirement is made that the entire motor moves position in the same up/down movement that the mop board moves) and move the connecting rod to drive the switching members;
wherein the driving motor is connected to the mop board (at least indirectly connected to the mop board) to increase a weight of the mop board (holding the device by the mop board, the device will be heavier with the driving motor than without) to generate a pressure on the working surface (the weight of the entire device provides a pressure between the working surface and the mop board);
and a control unit 7 configured to control the mopping working head to rise when the cleaning robot is in a state of being about to move onto a carpet (figure 3; last two lines of page 2),
wherein at least part of the mopping state switching assembly including a driving motor is connected to the mob board and configured to play a role of a balance weight (all parts of the device play some role in balancing the weight since all parts offset weight on another part of the device; even if the entire device is no totally balanced, all parts still play a role of a balance weight);
a space volume occupied by the mopping working head with a mop board bottom area and a rising height is a first volume;
a space volume occupied by the body of the cleaning robot with a body bottom area and a body height is a second volume.
Watanabe is silent regarding a ratio of the first volume to the second volume ranges from 0.004 to 0.1. However, the claimed ranges are dependent on the relative sizes of the components of the device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing to select relative sizes of the components to reach the claimed ranges since it has been held that changes in size/proportions and/or the recitation of relative dimensions does not establish patentability over the prior art when the device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04.IV.A.
Watanabe is silent regarding the first switching member and the second switching member arranged on a left side and a right side of a central axis of the mop board respectively along a moving direction of the cleaning robot. However, Koselka teaches a mop element 113/115 (figure 2) wherein support elements (see cylindrical supports extending from 113 in figure 2) are arranged on a left side and a right side of a central axis of the mop element respectively along a moving direction of the cleaning robot.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Watanabe by providing the first switching member and the second switching member on a left side and a right side of a central axis of the mob board respectively along a moving direction of the cleaning robot, as taught by Koselka, since such a modification would involve only a rearrangement of parts in a manner obvious to the of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing.
Regarding claim 65, the cleaning robot as modified above would be such that a rising height of the mopping working head is less than or equal to a difference between a thickness of the body and a height of a bottom surface of the body away from a ground since the ground is not previously claimed and can be any ground surface. The cleaning robot as claimed is of a structure that would allow it to have a rising height as claimed since the “difference as claimed” would be dependent on the ground the measurement is made in reference to and would necessarily meet the claim requirements when used in certain situations. For example, when the device is used on a surface with a ground feature that would extend up to contact the bottom surface of the body, the “difference” as claimed would be equal to the thickness of the body. The rising height in this situation would necessarily be less than the thickness of the body.
Claim(s) 63 and 66 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (JP 2019141318A) in view of Koselka et al (US 6741054) and further in view of Muta (US 5794297).
Regarding claims 63 and 66, Watanabe as modified discloses the clamed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 60. Watanabe discloses raising the mopping working head to a height above carpet such dust adhered to the mopping working head does not adhere to the carpet material but is silent regarding the specific rising height of the mopping working head.
However, Muta teaches a floor cleaning member where it is known that carpet has a height of more than 6.5 mm and less than 20 mm (Col. 7, lines 15-18).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Watanabe to have the rising heigh be more than 6.5 mm and less than 20 mm since Watanabe teaches a rising height above carpet and Muta teaches carpet having a heigh of more than 6.5 mm and less than 20 mm and for the purpose of ensuring the mop does not contact the carpet when in a non-mopping mode. Also note that the “rising height” can be interpreted as any height of the mopping working head during the rising process. Therefore, even if the final height of the mopping working head is more than 20 mm, a rising height during the rising process would still be less than or equal to 20 mm.
Claim(s) 61, 62 and 72 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (JP 2019141318A) in view of Koselka et al (US 6741054) and further in view of Wang (CN 112043206 A).
Regarding claim 61, Watanabe/Koselka discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 60. Watanabe further discloses when the cleaning robot is in the cleaning mode and the cleaning robot detects a carpet, control the mopping working head to rise and control the cleaning robot to move onto the carpet (abstract). Watanabe discloses that cleaning carpet is desired and mopping carpet is not desired (abstract).
Watanabe/ Koselka is silent regarding:
(re. claim 61) wherein the cleaning robot further comprises: a sweeping unit provided with a sweeping working head, where the sweeping unit is arranged on the body and configured to perform a preset sweeping action; the cleaning robot is configured to include at least a cleaning mode and a mopping mode, wherein rising the mopping working head makes it convenient for the sweeping unit to perform the sweeping action on the desired cleaning surface,
(Re. claim 62) wherein the control unit is configured to, when the cleaning robot is in the mopping mode and the cleaning robot detects a non-mopping surface (carpet as disclosed by Watanabe), control the cleaning robot to switch to the cleaning mode, control the mopping working head to rise and control the cleaning robot to move onto the non-mopping surface (carpet as disclosed by Watanabe) to sweep the non-mopping surface (carpet as disclosed by Watanabe),
(re. claim 72) wherein the sweeping working head comprises a sweeping state of being in contact with the surface of the working region and a non-sweeping state of being out of contact with the surface of the working region; wherein the control unit is configured to control the sweeping working head to switch to the non-sweeping state when the cleaning robot is in the mopping mode and to control the sweeping working head to switch to the sweeping state when the cleaning robot is in the sweeping mode; and wherein the sweeping working head is configured to switch between a sweeping working position of being in contact with the surface of the working region and a sweeping rising position of being out of contact with the surface of the working region, whereby when the sweeping working head is in the sweeping state, the sweeping working head is in the sweeping working position, and when the sweeping working head is in the non-sweeping state, the sweeping working head is in the sweeping rising position to make it convenient to control the sweeping working head to perform state switching between the sweeping state and the non-sweeping state.
However, Wang teaches (see translation for citation):
(re. claim 61) wherein the cleaning robot further comprises: a sweeping unit (first and second paragraph under “technical solution”) provided with a sweeping working head (“sweeping structure”/”broom mechanism”), where the sweeping unit is arranged on the body and configured to perform a preset sweeping action; the cleaning robot is configured to include at least a cleaning mode and a mopping mode (paragraphs 1-5 of page 3), wherein rising the mopping working head makes it convenient for the sweeping unit to perform the sweeping action on the desired cleaning surface (necessarily does so),
(Re. claim 62) wherein the control unit is configured to, when the cleaning robot is in the mopping mode and the cleaning robot is instructed not to mop (detects carpet as disclosed by Watanabe), control the cleaning robot to switch to the cleaning mode, control the mopping working head to rise and control the cleaning robot to move onto the non-mopping surface (carpet as disclosed by Watanabe) to sweep the non-mopping surface (carpet as disclosed by Watanabe) (see paragraphs 1-5 of page 3),
(re. claim 72) wherein the sweeping working head comprises a sweeping state of being in contact with the surface of the working region and a non-sweeping state of being out of contact with the surface of the working region (paragraphs 1-5 of page 3); wherein the control unit is configured to control the sweeping working head to switch to the non-sweeping state when the cleaning robot is in the mopping mode and to control the sweeping working head to switch to the sweeping state when the cleaning robot is in the sweeping mode; and wherein the sweeping working head is configured to switch between a sweeping working position of being in contact with the surface of the working region and a sweeping rising position of being out of contact with the surface of the working region, whereby when the sweeping working head is in the sweeping state, the sweeping working head is in the sweeping working position, and when the sweeping working head is in the non-sweeping state, the sweeping working head is in the sweeping rising position to make it convenient to control the sweeping working head to perform state switching between the sweeping state and the non-sweeping state (paragraphs 1-5 of page 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing to modify Watanabe/ Koselka by making the cleaning robot such that:
(re. claim 61) wherein the cleaning robot further comprises: a sweeping unit provided with a sweeping working head, where the sweeping unit is arranged on the body and configured to perform a preset sweeping action; the cleaning robot is configured to include at least a cleaning mode and a mopping mode, wherein rising the mopping working head makes it convenient for the sweeping unit to perform the sweeping action on the desired cleaning surface,
(Re. claim 62) wherein the control unit is configured to, when the cleaning robot is in the mopping mode and the cleaning robot detects a non-mopping surface (carpet as disclosed by Watanabe), control the cleaning robot to switch to the cleaning mode, control the mopping working head to rise and control the cleaning robot to move onto the non-mopping surface (carpet as disclosed by Watanabe) to sweep the non-mopping surface (carpet as disclosed by Watanabe),
(re. claim 72) wherein the sweeping working head comprises a sweeping state of being in contact with the surface of the working region and a non-sweeping state of being out of contact with the surface of the working region; wherein the control unit is configured to control the sweeping working head to switch to the non-sweeping state when the cleaning robot is in the mopping mode and to control the sweeping working head to switch to the sweeping state when the cleaning robot is in the sweeping mode; and wherein the sweeping working head is configured to switch between a sweeping working position of being in contact with the surface of the working region and a sweeping rising position of being out of contact with the surface of the working region, whereby when the sweeping working head is in the sweeping state, the sweeping working head is in the sweeping working position, and when the sweeping working head is in the non-sweeping state, the sweeping working head is in the sweeping rising position to make it convenient to control the sweeping working head to perform state switching between the sweeping state and the non-sweeping state,
as taught by Wang, for the purpose of improving the cleaning effect and saving manpower and material resources (Wang abstract).
Claim(s) 60, 61 and 72 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, in view of Watanabe and further in view of Koselka et al (US 6741054).
Regarding claim 60, Wang discloses (see translation) a cleaning robot, wherein the cleaning robot comprises: a body 1 (see figures); a moving unit 18 (wheels) arranged on the body and configured to support the body and drive the cleaning robot to move on a surface of a working region; a mopping unit 8 provided with a mopping working head, wherein the mopping unit is arranged on the body and configured to perform a preset mopping action; and a control unit (page 3, lines 5-8: “controlling”) configured to control the mopping working head to rise when the cleaning robot is given instruction (abstract and paragraphs 1-5 of page 3).
Wang is silent regarding instruction for rising being when the cleaning robot is about to go on carpet. However, Watanabe teaches a mopping working head rising when the cleaning robot is about to go onto carpet (last 2 lines of page 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the control unit configure dot control the mopping working head to rise when the cleaning robot is about to go onto carpet, as taught by Watanabe, for the purpose of preventing the mopping working head from getting collected dust on the carpet.
Wang is further silent regarding:
the mopping unit including a mopping state switching assembly/mopping state switch, the mopping state switching assembly including:
a first switching member and a second switching member, the first switching member and the second switching member connected to a mop board,
a connection member configured to connect the first switching member, the second switching member, and a driving unit, and
the driving unit including a driving motor, the driving motor being connected to the mop board, moving together with the mop board, and being configured to move the connection member to drive at least one part of the first switching member and at least one part of the second switching member to simultaneously move up and down in the direction perpendicular to the working surface.
Watanabe teaches the mopping unit including a mopping state switching assembly/mopping state switch configured to drive a mop board to move up and down along a direction perpendicular to a working surface, the mopping state switching assembly including:
a first switching member (rail 12 on left) and a second switching member (rail 12 on right), the first switching member and the second switching member connected to a mop board 3; and
a connection member 10 configured to connect the first switching member, the second switching member, and a driving unit, and
the driving unit including a driving motor 8, the driving motor being connected to the mop board (indirectly connected), moving together with the mop board (when driving motor moves, this actuates mop board to move; i.e. they move at the same time and therefore interpreted as moving together; note connection to gear box which makes clear that the motor has moving parts; no requirement is made that the entire motor moves position in the same up/down movement that the mop board moves), and being configured to move the connection member to drive at least one part of the first switching member and at least one part of the second switching member to simultaneously move up and down in the direction perpendicular to the working surface (see figures and paragraphs 12-13 of page 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Wang by making the mopping unit including a mopping state switching assembly/mopping state switch, the mopping state switching assembly including:
a first switching member and a second switching member, the first switching member and the second switching member connected to a mop board,
a connection member configured to connect the first switching member, the second switching member, and a driving unit, and
the driving unit including a driving motor, the driving motor being connected to the mop board, moving together with the mop board, and being configured to move the connection member to drive at least one part of the first switching member and at least one part of the second switching member to simultaneously move up and down in the direction perpendicular to the working surface, as taught by Watanabe, for the purpose of effectively moving the mopping unit into a storing position for keeping the mopping unit clean when not in use.
The device as made obvious by Wang/Watanabe, as set forth above is such that at least part of the mopping state switching assembly including a driving motor is connected to the mob board and configured to play a role of a balance weight (all parts of the device play some role in balancing the weight since all parts offset weight on another part of the device; even if the entire device is no totally balanced, all parts still play a role of a balance weight);
a space volume occupied by the mopping working head with a mop board bottom area and a rising height is a first volume;
a space volume occupied by the body of the cleaning robot with a body bottom area and a body height is a second volume.
Wang/Watanabe is silent regarding a ratio of the first volume to the second volume ranges from 0.004 to 0.1. However, the claimed ranges are dependent on the relative sizes of the components of the device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing to select relative sizes of the components to reach the claimed ranges since it has been held that changes in size/proportions and/or the recitation of relative dimensions does not establish patentability over the prior art when the device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04.IV.A.
Wang/Watanabe is silent regarding the first switching member and the second switching member arranged on a left side and a right side of a central axis of the mop board respectively along a moving direction of the cleaning robot. However, Koselka teaches a mop element 113/115 (figure 2) wherein support elements (see cylindrical supports extending from 113 in figure 2) are arranged on a left side and a right side of a central axis of the mop element respectively along a moving direction of the cleaning robot.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Wang/Watanabe by providing the first switching member and the second switching member on a left side and a right side of a central axis of the mob board respectively along a moving direction of the cleaning robot, as taught by Koselka, since such a modification would involve only a rearrangement of parts in a manner obvious to the of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing.
Regarding claim 61, Wang further discloses wherein the cleaning robot further comprises: a sweeping unit provided with a sweeping working head 2 (or portion of robot with both elements 2: see figure 1), where the sweeping unit is arranged on the body and configured to perform a preset sweeping action (abstract and paragraphs 1-5 of page 3); the cleaning robot is configured to include at least a cleaning mode and a mopping mode (abstract and paragraphs 1-5 of page 3); and the control unit is configured to, when the cleaning robot is in the cleaning mode and the cleaning robot is instructed not to mop (detects carpet as taught by Watanabe above) control the mopping working head to rise and control the cleaning robot to move onto designated area (carpet as taught by Watanabe) to make it convenient for the sweeping unit to perform the sweeping action on the carpet (abstract and paragraphs 1-5 of page 3). Modified Wang is such that a rising height of the mopping working head is greater than 6 mm as set forth above.
Regarding claim 72, Wang further discloses wherein the sweeping working head comprises a sweeping state of being in contact with the surface of the working region and a non-sweeping state of being out of contact with the surface of the working region; wherein the control unit is configured to control the sweeping working head to switch to the non-sweeping state when the cleaning robot is in the mopping mode and to control the sweeping working head to switch to the sweeping state when the cleaning robot is in the sweeping mode; and wherein the sweeping working head is configured to switch between a sweeping working position of being in contact with the surface of the working region and a sweeping rising position of being out of contact with the surface of the working region, whereby when the sweeping working head is in the sweeping state, the sweeping working head is in the sweeping working position, and when the sweeping working head is in the non-sweeping state, the sweeping working head is in the sweeping rising position to make it convenient to control the sweeping working head to perform state switching between the sweeping state and the non-sweeping state (abstract and paragraphs 1-5 of page 3).
Claim(s) 73-77 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, in view of Watanabe further in view of Koselka and further in view of Li et al (US 20200323413 A1).
Regarding claim 73, Wang/Watanabe/ Koselka discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 72. Wang further discloses wherein the sweeping working head comprises two brush working heads 2 including a side brush working head 2; wherein the control unit is configured to control the roller brush working head and the side brush working head rise when the cleaning robot is in the mopping mode (abstract and paragraphs 1-5 of page 3).
Wang is silent regarding both brush working heads simultaneously rise when the cleaning robot is in the mopping mode. However, there are limited number of known choices pertaining to the time periods of the rising of the brush working heads, that being a first rises then a second, a second rises then a first or both rising simultaneously.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing to have both brush working heads rise simultaneously when the cleaning robot is in the mopping mode since it is has been held to be obvious to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143(I)(E)).
Wang/Watanabe/ Koselka is further silent regarding one of the brush working heads being a roller brush working head.
However, Li teaches a robot cleaning device comprising both a roller brush working head 61 and a side brush working head 62 (figure 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Wang/Watanabe/ Koselka by providing a roller brush working head as part of the sweeping unit as one of the brush working heads, as taught by Li, for the purpose of improving the sweeping functions of the robot.
Regarding claim 74, Wang further discloses the sweeping unit comprises a sweeping state switching assembly 4 (motor) configured to drive the sweeping working heads up and down, wherein one of the sweeping working heads is a side brush 2. Wang does not specifically set forth that the sweeping state switching assembly simultaneously drives the sweeping working heads. However, there are limited number of known choices pertaining to the time periods of the rising of the brush working heads, that being a first is driven then a second, a second driven then a first or both being driven simultaneously. Wang also does not establish if there is one motor for each working head or two motors; however, regardless of whether there are one or two motors, the motor(s) would still serve as the sweeping state switching assembly since an “assembly” can be multiple parts.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing to have both brush working heads being driven simultaneously by the sweeping state switching assembly since it is has been held to be obvious to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143(I)(E)).
Regarding claims 75, Wang is silent regarding the sweeping working head comprises at least one roller brush working head having a roller brush working position in contact with the surface of the working region and a roller brush rising position out of contact with the surface of the working region; wherein when the sweeping working head is in the sweeping state, the roller brush working head is in the roller brush working position, and when the sweeping working head is in the non-sweeping state, the roller brush working head is in the roller brush rising position; (re. claim 76) wherein the roller brush working head is configured to switch between the roller brush working position and the roller brush rising position in a rotation manner, (re. claim 77) wherein when the roller brush working head is in the sweeping state, the roller brush working head rotates around a roller brush shaft, and in a rotating process, the roller brush working head passes through at least a roller brush working position in contact with the surface of the working region and a roller brush rising position out of contact with the surface of the working region; and wherein when the sweeping working head is in the non-sweeping state, the roller brush working head is in the roller brush rising position.
However, Li teaches a robot cleaner comprising a sweeping working head with at least one roller brush working head (the roller brush working head is the portion of 61 with a single row of bristles) having a roller brush working position in contact with the surface of the working region (as seen in figure 2 when the row of bristles is facing the working region) and a roller brush rising position out of contact with the surface of the working region (when the part rotates the row of bristles will be facing away from the working region and not contact the working region); wherein when the sweeping working head is in the sweeping state, the roller brush working head is in the roller brush working position (at least some of the time), and when the sweeping working head is in the non-sweeping state, the roller brush working head is in the roller brush rising position (there will be a row of bristles in the claimed position and it is this row of bristles that serves as the claimed working head), (re. claim 76) wherein the roller brush working head is configured to switch between the roller brush working position and the roller brush rising position in a rotation manner (it rotates above an axis), (re. claim 77) wherein when the roller brush working head is in the sweeping state, the roller brush working head rotates around a roller brush shaft (shaft bristles are attached to), and in a rotating process, the roller brush working head passes through at least a roller brush working position in contact with the surface of the working region (as seen in figure 2 when the row of bristles is facing the working region) and a roller brush rising position out of contact with the surface of the working region (when the part rotates the row of bristles will be facing away from the working region and not contact the working region); and wherein when the sweeping working head is in the non-sweeping state, the roller brush working head is in the roller brush working position. (there will be a row of bristles in the claimed position and it is this row of bristles that serves as the claimed working head)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Wang/Watanabe/Muta by providing a roller brush as part of the sweeping unit, as taught by Li, for the purpose of improving the sweeping functions of the robot. The device made obvious by the above combination would meet all claim limitations since the brush of Li would function the same as is set forth above.
It is noted that the positions as claimed are interpreted to be positions relative to another part of the robot or another part outside of the robot; for example, the position could be relative to another part of the respective working head, wherein the rising position would be when it is out of contact with the surface regardless of whether the entire unit is lowered or retracted.
Claim(s) 78 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, in view of Watanabe, further in view of Koselka, further in view of Li and further in view of Thomas, SR. et al (US 20040049878 A1).
Regarding claim 78, Wang/Watanabe/ Koselka /Li discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 75. Wang as modified above further discloses a sweeping state switching assembly (Wang telescopic mechanism 4) that is configured to drive the roller brush (as taught by Li as set forth above) working head to move up and down.
Wang/Watanabe/ Koselka/Li is silent regarding the sweeping state switching assembly comprises a first motor and a first cam, wherein the first cam is configured to follow the first motor to rotate, wherein the first motor rotates along a preset first direction and drives the first cam to rotate to rise the working head, and wherein the first motor rotates along a preset second direction and drives the first cam to rotate to drive the working head to descend, whereby the second direction is opposite to the first direction.
However, Thomas, SR. teaches a lifting/lowering device for a cleaning device comprising a switching assembly comprising a motor and a cam (paragraph 0110) wherein the cam is configured to follow the motor to rotate (paragraph 0110), wherein the motor rotates along a preset first direction and drives the cam to rotate to rise the working head, and wherein the motor rotates along a preset second direction and drives the first cam to rotate to drive the working head to descend, whereby the second direction is opposite to the first direction (paragraph 0110; this is how a rotating cam/motor that vertically moved a cleaning element must work).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Wang/Watanabe/Koselka/Li to have the sweeping state switching assembly comprises a first motor and a first cam, wherein the first cam is configured to follow the first motor to rotate, wherein the first motor rotates along a preset first direction and drives the first cam to rotate to rise the working head, and wherein the first motor rotates along a preset second direction and drives the first cam to rotate to drive the working head to descend, whereby the second direction is opposite to the first direction, as taught by Thomas, SR., for the purpose of using a well-known assembly for vertically lowering and lifting a cleaning element.
Claim(s) 79 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, in view of Watanabe, further in view of Koselka, further in view of Li and further in view of Uehigashi (US 20050166356 A1).
Regarding claim 79, Wang/Watanabe/Koselkad/Li discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 76.
Wang further discloses wherein the sweeping working head comprises at least one side brush working head 6 rotatable around a rotational shaft, the side brush working head comprising a side brush 6; wherein the sweeping unit comprises a sweeping state switching assembly 4 that is configured to drive the side brush working head to move up and down; wherein when the sweeping working head is in the sweeping state, the side brush working head rotates around the rotational shaft,
Wang is silent regarding the rotation of the side brush working head around the rotational shaft enables the side brush working head to switch between a side brush working position and a side brush lifting position; when the side brush is in the side brush working position, the side brush is in contact with the surface of the working region; and when the side brush working head is in the side brush lifting position, the side brush is out of contact with the working surface.
However, Uehigashi teaches a cleaning robot comprising a side brush working head (figure 3C: one or more of the bristles that form part of 30L) that rotates around a shaft 31 wherein the rotation of the side brush working head around the rotational shaft enables the side brush working head to switch between a side brush working position (see bristles angled downwards in figure 3C that are in contact with ground) and a side brush lifting position (at least some bristle(s) are in the position when the modified device is in a non-sweeping state and form the side brush working head as claimed); when the side brush is in the side brush working position, the side brush is in contact with the surface of the working region; and when the side brush working head is in the side brush lifting position, the side brush is out of contact with the working surface.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Wang/Watanabe/Koselka/Li by providing side brush working head as taught by Uehigashi such that wherein in a rotating process, (at least some bristle(s) are in the position when the modified device is in a non-sweeping state and form the side brush working head as claimed), as taught by Uehigashi, for the purpose of preventing dust collected by the front portions of the side brushes from being scattered to the outside of the cleaner body by the rear portions of the brushes.
It is noted that the positions as claimed are interpreted to be positions relative to another part of the robot or another part outside of the robot; for example, the position could be relative to another part of the respective working head, wherein the rising position would be when it is out of contact with the surface regardless of whether the entire unit is lowered or retracted. The side brush working head can also be interpreted as being some of the brushes that make the element 30L (figure 4C), wherein those brushes move from a position in contact with the working region and out of contact. Also note that the “working region” can be a certain area/region of a floor, wherein in figure 4C that region is not in contact with 30L but when rotated 30L does contact that region of the floor.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the switching members on a left side and a right side of a central axis “along a moving direction of the cleaning robot” is persuasive and a new ground of rejection has been made.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the motor configured to “play a role of a balance weight” is not persuasive. The limitation is overly broad and the claim does not specific in what way the motor balances weight or what it offsets the weight of.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the ratio of the first volume and the second volume are not persuasive. As set forth above and similarly in the previous Office action, the claimed ranges are dependent on the relative sizes of the components of the device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing to select relative sizes of the components to reach the claimed ranges since it has been held that changes in size/proportions and/or the recitation of relative dimensions does not establish patentability over the prior art when the device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04.IV.A.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC J ROSEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7855. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 930am-6pm.
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, Edward Lefkowitz can be reached at (571) 272-2180. 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.
/ERIC J ROSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights