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 .
Status
In response to the amendment filed on 03/16/2026, claims 1, 14, 22, 24, 29, and 31 have been amended, and claims 4, 5, 7, 12, 25-28, and 30 are cancelled. Claims 6, 8-11, and 15-21 were previously cancelled. Claims 1-3, 13, 14, 22-24, 29, and 31-33 are pending and under examination.
Drawings
In response to the drawing objection made in the previous non-final rejection office action dated on 01/23/2026, Applicant has amended claim 14. As a result, the drawing objection has been withdrawn.
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: “a drive system”, “a mopping pad assembly”, and “a scrubbing system” in claims 1 and 22, “a linkage system” in claims 2 and 23, and “a vacuum system” in claims 13 and 22, and “a vacuum assembly” in claim 14.
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sack et al. (US 2022/0104677, hereinafter Sack), in view of Tsang (US 6032313) and Retsch (US 9477254).
Regarding claim 1, Sack discloses, in fig. 2B, a mobile cleaning robot (mobile cleaning robot 200) comprising:
a body (body 202);
a drive system (this element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The drive system may include a motor, a geartrain, and wheels as described in ¶ 0038) connected to the body and operable to move the mobile cleaning robot about a floor surface of an environment (¶ 0069, the robot 200 can include a drive system including actuators 208a, 208b, e.g., motors. The actuators are operably connected to the drive wheels 210a, 210b; ¶ 0071, an actuator can be operably connected through a gearbox);
a mopping pad assembly (this element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The mopping pad assembly can include a pad tray and a mopping pad as described in ¶ 0078) connected to the body and configured to hold a mopping pad that is engageable with the floor surface (annotated Sack fig. 2B below and ¶ 0078, a mopping system 228 [corresponds to the recited mopping pad assembly] includes a cleaning pad 230 [corresponds to the mopping pad] in a pad housing 234 [corresponds to the pad tray]); and
a scrubbing system (this element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The scrubbing system can include a scrubbing head, a support, a linkage system, and an actuator or a motor as described in ¶ 0079) connected to the body in front of the mopping pad assembly, the scrubbing system operable to engage and scrub the floor surface (annotated Sack fig. 2B below and ¶ 0071, one of rollers 206 is designated as a scrubbing system having a scrubbing head and a support and is operably connected to an actuator 207. The recited scrubbing system is connected to the body in front of the mopping pad 230. The roller 206 engages debris on the floor surface thus the rotating roller scrubs the floor surface; fig. 2A, additionally, a side brush 212 having linkages and a motor 214 is located in front of the mopping pad 234 and scrubs the floor surface), but does not disclose the scrubbing system including: a scrubbing head including a pair of brushes engageable with the floor surface; a scrubbing motor operable to translate each of the pair of brushes with respect to the body.
Tsang teaches, in an analogous cleaning apparatus field of endeavor, the scrubbing system including: a scrubbing head including a pair of brushes engageable with the floor surface; a scrubbing motor operable to translate each of the pair of brushes with respect to the body (figs. 15-16 and col. 7:35-45 and 11:55-12:19, the brush 96 [corresponds to the recited scrubbing head] includes a pair of members 92 [correspond to the recited brushes]. The members 92 are driven by the motor and/or the second motor. By combining with scrubbing system of Sack, the brush of Tsang can engage with the floor surface)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mobile cleaning robot of Sack to provide the scrubbing head including the pair of brushes as taught by Tsang. The pair of brushes would clean the floor better than a single brush.
Sack as modified by Tsang does not disclose one or more flexures connected to the scrubbing head to bias the scrubbing head to a neutral position.
Retsch teaches, in a force transmitting mechanical device field of endeavor and capable of solving primary problem, one or more flexures connected to the scrubbing head to bias the scrubbing head to a neutral position (fig. 4 and col. 5:36-6:9, a supporting housing 40 is axially movable in the direction of an arrow 46. Compression springs 62, 64 [correspond to the recited flexures] are connected to the supporting housing and move the supporting housing 40 into a central position. The compression springs of Retsch can be combined with the scrubbing head of Tsang to move it into a central position).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mobile cleaning robot of Sack as modified by Tsang to provide the flexures as taught by Retsch so that the device itself is placed in a central position when no driving force is applied (Retsch col. 6:43-47).
PNG
media_image1.png
841
1164
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Sack Fig. 2B
Regarding claim 13, Sack as modified by Tsang and Retsch teaches the mobile cleaning robot as in the rejection of claim 1, further comprising: a vacuum system (this element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The vacuum system includes a cleaning head as described in ¶ 0147) operable to ingest debris from the floor surface (Sack, fig. 2A and ¶ 0198, the mobile cleaning robot comprises a vacuum system which includes an extractor 205 [corresponds to the cleaning head] operable to extract debris from a floor surface of the environment).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sack in view of Tsang and Retsch, as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Goff (US 2019/0261826).
Regarding claim 2, Sack as modified by Tsang and Retsch teaches the mobile cleaning robot as in the rejection of claim 1, but does not disclose a linkage system connected to the scrubbing system and to the body, the linkage system (this element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The linkage system can include links that can be connected to the body as described in ¶ 0081) configured to enable movement of the scrubbing system with respect to the body.
Goff teaches, in an analogous cleaning apparatus field of endeavor, a linkage system connected to the scrubbing system and to the body, the linkage system configured to enable movement of the scrubbing system with respect to the body (figs. 1-2 and ¶ 0020, an adjustable deck assembly 22 [corresponds to the recited linkage system] comprising a plurality of links 30, 44 is connected to a housing 20 [corresponds to the body] of a cleaning machine 10. The adjustable deck assembly 22 moves a scrub deck 24 having a floor cleaning implement 26 with respect to the body of the cleaning machine. The floor cleaning implement 26 can be a scrubber or an oscillating pad).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mobile cleaning robot of Sack as modified by Tsang and Retsch to provide the linkage system as taught by Goff so that a position of the scrub deck can be adjusted for effective floor maintenance (Goff ¶ 0007).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sack in view of Tsang, Retsch, and Goff, as applied to claim 2 above, and in further view of Davis (US 2008/0109983).
Regarding claim 3, Sack as modified by Tsang, Retsch, and Goff teaches the mobile cleaning robot as in the rejection of claim 2, but does not disclose a linkage motor connected to the linkage system, the linkage motor operable to move the scrubbing system relative to the body.
Davis teaches, in an analogous cleaning apparatus field of endeavor, a linkage motor connected to the linkage system, the linkage motor operable to move the scrubbing system relative to the body (figs. 5 and 12 and ¶ 0040, a cleaning system 12 of a cleaning machine 10 comprises a lift linkage 101 [corresponds to the recited linkage system] to move a squeegee assembly 99 with respect to a floor surface. The lift linkage 101 is connected to a motor 103).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mobile cleaning robot of Sack as modified by Tsang, Retsch, and Goff to provide the linkage motor as taught by Davis so that the linkage can position the cleaning element such as a squeegee or a scrubber into an operating position or a storage position (Davis ¶ 0040).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sack in view of Tsang and Retsch, as applied to claim 13 above, in view of O’Brien et al. (US 2019/0208971, hereinafter O’Brien).
Regarding claim 14, Sack as modified by Tsang and Retsch teaches the mobile cleaning robot as in the rejection of claim 13, wherein the vacuum system includes a cleaning head operable to engage the floor surface and ingest debris therefrom (Sack, fig. 2A and ¶ 0198, the mobile cleaning robot comprises a vacuum system which includes an extractor 205 [corresponds to the recited cleaning head] operable to extract debris from a floor surface of the environment), but does not disclose a vacuum assembly (this element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The vacuum assembly 124 can include a motor to drive an impeller to generate airflow when rotated (¶ 0043)) operable to produce an air stream to flow into the body through the cleaning head to ingest debris.
O’Brien teaches, in an analogous mobile cleaning robot field of endeavor, a vacuum assembly operable to produce an air stream to flow into the body through the cleaning head to ingest debris (fig. 1A and ¶ 0047, a robot comprises a vacuum assembly 118. The vacuum assembly includes an impeller to generate an airflow 120 when rotated. There should be a motor to rotate the impeller. The airflow ingest debris into the robot from the cleaning head between two rollers 104, 105).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mobile cleaning robot of Sack as modified by Tsang and Retsch to provide the vacuum assembly as taught by O’Brien. The airflow generated by the vacuum assembly helps vacuuming the debris from the floor surface.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sack et al. (US 2022/0104677, hereinafter Sack), in view of Tsang (US 6032313).
Regarding claim 22, Sack discloses, in fig. 2B, a mobile cleaning robot comprising (mobile cleaning robot 200):
a body (body 202);
a drive system (this element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The drive system may include a motor, a geartrain, and wheels as described in ¶ 0038) connected to the body and operable to move the mobile cleaning robot about a floor surface of an environment (¶ 0069, the robot 200 can include a drive system including actuators 208a, 208b, e.g., motors. The actuators are operably connected to the drive wheels 210a, 210b; ¶ 0071, an actuator can be operably connected through a gearbox);
a vacuum system (this element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The vacuum system includes a motor as described in ¶ 0053) connected to the body and operable to ingest debris from the floor surface (¶ 0198, the mobile cleaning robot comprises a vacuum system connected to the body and includes an extractor [corresponds to the motor] operable to extract debris from a floor surface of the environment);
a mopping pad assembly (this element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The mopping pad assembly can include a pad tray and a mopping pad as described in ¶ 0078) connected to the body and configured to hold a mopping pad that is engageable with the floor surface (annotated Sack fig. 2B above and ¶ 0078, a mopping system 228 [corresponds to the recited mopping pad assembly] includes a cleaning pad 230 [corresponds to the mopping pad] in a pad housing 234 [corresponds to the pad tray]); and
a scrubbing system (this element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The scrubbing system can include a scrubbing head, a support, a linkage system, and an actuator or a motor as described in ¶ 0079) connected to the body between the body and the mopping pad assembly, the scrubbing system including a scrubbing head operable to engage and scrub the floor surface (annotated Sack fig. 2B above and ¶ 0071, one of rollers 206 is designated as a scrubbing system having a scrubbing head and a support and is operably connected to an actuator 207. The recited scrubbing system is positioned between the body and the mopping pad 230. The roller 206 engages debris on the floor surface thus the rotating roller scrubs the floor surface; fig. 2A, additionally, a side brush 212 having linkages and a motor 214 is located in front of the mopping pad 234 and scrubs the floor surface), but does not disclose the scrubbing system includes a scrubbing motor operable to move the scrubbing head to scrub the floor surface; a first brush assembly and a second brush assembly, the scrubbing motor operable to translate the first brush assembly and the second brush assembly independently and in opposing directions with respect to the body.
Tsang teaches, in an analogous cleaning apparatus field of endeavor, the scrubbing system includes a scrubbing motor operable to move the scrubbing head to scrub the floor surface; a first brush assembly and a second brush assembly, the scrubbing motor operable to translate the first brush assembly and the second brush assembly independently and in opposing directions with respect to the body (Tsang, figs. 11-16 and col. 5:53-54, 7:29-45, and 11:55-12:19, a cleaning tool having a mechanism 90 [corresponds to the recited scrubbing system] of a cascade-type brush 96 with scrubbing bristles 93 is driven by a motor or a second motor. The bristles 93 of Tsang can be combined with Sack to scrub the floor surface. The brush 96 [corresponds to the recited scrubbing head] includes a plurality of members 92 and bristles 93 [correspond to the recited brush assemblies]. One of them can be designated as the recited first brush assembly and another one can be designated as the recited second brush assembly. Tsang discloses mechanical arrangement of the heads not necessarily done by using a crankshaft as shown in fig. 15 (col. 12:1-7). Fig. 14 shows another arrangement having the members move in opposing directions with respect to a body. The motion of the members is achieved by a motor and gears as shown in figs. 11-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mobile cleaning robot of Sack to provide the first and second brush assemblies operated by the scrubbing motor as taught by Tsang. The plurality of brushes would clean the floor better than a single brush.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sack in view of Tsang, as applied to claim 22 above, and in further view of Goff.
Regarding claim 23, Sack as modified by Tsang teaches the mobile cleaning robot as in the rejection of claim 22, but does not disclose a linkage system connected to the scrubbing system and to the body, the linkage system (this element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The linkage system can include links that can be connected to the body as described in ¶ 0081) configured to enable movement of the scrubbing system with respect to the body and the floor surface.
Goff teaches, in an analogous cleaning apparatus field of endeavor, a linkage system connected to the scrubbing system and to the body, the linkage system configured to enable movement of the scrubbing system with respect to the body and the floor surface (figs. 1-2 and ¶ 0020, an adjustable deck assembly 22 [corresponds to the recited linkage system] comprising a plurality of links 30, 44 is connected to a housing 20 [corresponds to the body] of a cleaning machine 10. The adjustable deck assembly 22 moves a scrub deck 24 having a floor cleaning implement 26 with respect to the body of the cleaning machine and the floor surface. The floor cleaning implement 26 can be a scrubber or an oscillating pad used for mechanically altering debris on the floor surface).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mobile cleaning robot of Sack as modified by Tsang to provide the linkage system as taught by Goff so that a position of the scrub deck can be adjusted for effective floor maintenance (Goff ¶ 0007).
Claims 24 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sack in view of Tsang and Goff, as applied to claim 23 above, and in further view of Davis.
Regarding claim 24, Sack as modified by Tsang and Goff teaches the mobile cleaning robot as in the rejection of claim 23, but does not disclose a linkage motor connected to the linkage system, the linkage motor operable to move the scrubbing system relative to the body.
Davis teaches, in an analogous cleaning apparatus field of endeavor, a linkage motor connected to the linkage system, the linkage motor operable to move the scrubbing system relative to the body (figs. 5 and 12 and ¶ 0040, as discussed in claim 3, a cleaning system 12 of a cleaning machine 10 comprises a lift linkage 101 [corresponds to the recited linkage system] to move a squeegee assembly 99 with respect to a floor surface. The lift linkage 101 is connected to a motor 103).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mobile cleaning robot of Sack as modified by Tsang and Goff to provide the linkage motor as taught by Davis so that the linkage can position the cleaning element such as a squeegee or a scrubber into an operating position or a storage position (Davis ¶ 0040).
Regarding claim 29, Sack as modified by Tsang, Goff, and Davis teaches the mobile cleaning robot as in the rejection of claim 24, wherein the first brush assembly includes a first frame supporting a first scrubber engageable with the floor surface, and wherein the second brush assembly includes a second frame supporting a second scrubber engageable with the floor surface (Tsang, fig. 16, each of the first and second brush assemblies includes a head 92 [corresponds to the recited frame] which supports bristles 93 [correspond to the recited scrubber]. The bristles of Tsang can be combined with the cleaning robot of Sack to engage the floor surface).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mobile cleaning robot of Sack as modified by Tsang, Goff, and Davis to provide the frames and the scrubbers as taught by Tsang so that the scrubbers/bristles are securely held during repeated scrubbing operations.
Claims 31 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sack in view of Tsang, Goff, and Davis, as applied to claim 29 above, and in further view of Cao (CN 109549573A).
Regarding claim 31, Sack as modified by Tsang, Goff, and Davis teaches the mobile cleaning robot as in the rejection of claim 29, but does not disclose a driver connected to the scrubbing motor, the driver including: a first bearing engaged with a first follower of the first frame; and a second bearing engaged with a second follower of the second frame.
Cao teaches, in an analogous cleaning device field of endeavor, a driver connected to the scrubbing motor, the driver including: a first bearing engaged with a first follower of the first frame; and a second bearing engaged with a second follower of the second frame (figs. 4-5 and Cao English translation, p. 7:7-27, a sweeping/scrubbing machine comprises a cam structure 32 [corresponds to the recited driver] driven by a work drive motor. The cam structure 32 comprises bearings 33a, 33b [correspond to the recited first and second bearings]. The bearings are engaged with eccentric shaft holes 321 [correspond to the recited first and second followers] connected with rotating arms 34a, 34b [correspond to the recited first and second frames]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mobile cleaning robot of Sack as modified by Tsang, Goff, and Davis to provide the driver as taught by Cao in order to provide oscillating motion to a cleaner for wiping the floor surface.
Regarding claim 32, Sack as modified by Tsang, Goff, Davis, and Cao teaches the mobile cleaning robot as in the rejection of claim 31, wherein the first bearing and the second bearing are connected to the driver eccentrically such that the first bearing drives the first follower and the first frame in a first direction and the second bearing drives the second follower and the second frame in a second direction opposite the first direction (Cao English translation p. 7:7-27 and figs. 4-5, the bearings 33a, 33b move in the eccentric shaft holes 321 [correspond to the recited first and second followers], and the outcome rotations are in opposite directions as represented by the arms 34a, 34b rotating in the opposite directions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mobile cleaning robot of Sack as modified by Tsang, Goff, Davis, and Cao to provide the frames to move in opposite directions as taught by Cao so that wiping is done in different directions for effective scrubbing/wiping of the floor surface.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sack in view of Tsang, Goff, Davis, and Cao, as applied to claim 32 above, and in further view of Retsch.
Regarding claim 33, Sack as modified by Tsang, Goff, Davis, and Cao teaches the mobile cleaning robot as in the rejection of claim 32, but does not disclose the scrubbing head includes one or more first flexures connected to the first frame and connected to the linkage system or the body, and wherein the scrubbing head includes one or more second flexures connected to the second frame and connected to the linkage system or the body, the one or more first flexures configured to bias the first frame to a first neutral position, and the one or more second flexures configured to bias the second frame to a second neutral position aligned with the first neutral position.
Retsch teaches, in a force transmitting mechanical device field of endeavor and capable of solving primary problem, the scrubbing head includes one or more first flexures connected to the first frame and connected to the linkage system or the body, and wherein the scrubbing head includes one or more second flexures connected to the second frame and connected to the linkage system or the body, the one or more first flexures configured to bias the first frame to a first neutral position, and the one or more second flexures configured to bias the second frame to a second neutral position aligned with the first neutral position (fig. 4 and col. 5:36-6:9, a supporting housing 40 is axially movable in the direction of an arrow 46. Compression springs 62, 64 [correspond to the recited flexures] are connected to the supporting housing and move the supporting housing 40 into a central position. Retsch teaches the compression springs can be connected to a reciprocating component to make it return to a neutral position. The compression springs of Retsch can be combined with the members 92 [correspond to the recited first and second frames] and brush 96 [corresponds to the recited scrubbing head] of Tsang to move them to the first neutral position. The brush 96 of Tsang can be combined with the linkage system of Goff).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mobile cleaning robot of Sack as modified by Tsang, Goff, Davis, and Cao to provide the flexures as taught by Retsch so that the device itself is placed in a central position when no driving force is applied (Retsch col. 6:43-47).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Sack does not disclose the amended claim limitations of claim 1 that a scrubbing system includes a scrubbing head including a pair of brushes, a scrubbing motor, and one or more flexures. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Amended claim 1 includes the claim limitations previously recited in dependent claims. Thus, Sack, Tsang, and Retsch teach the amended claim limitations.
Applicant argues the compression springs of Retsch would be unfit to combine with Tsang for its intended purpose. Applicant asserts because the Tsang’s brush head including members 92 is connected to a single side crank shaft, it would be impossible to use the dual compression springs. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
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 (See MPEP 2145 III). Retsch combined with Tsang teaches the use of springs for biasing the scrubbing head to a neutral position. Additionally, Tsang teaches a mechanism for operating the scrubbing head and brushes are not limited to the use of crankshaft (col. 12:1-7). As Examiner discusses in the current rejection of claim 22, Tsang also presents a mechanism for moving the brushes by using a motor and gears (figs. 11-14). Thus, the test for obviousness is not bringing the Tsang’s brushes connected with the crankshaft, but the Tsang’s scrubbing head can be combined with the springs of Retsch so that the scrubbing head can be biased to move to a neutral position.
Applicant similarly argues that Sack does not disclose amended claim limitations of claim 22. But the amended claim 22 includes claim limitations previously recited in dependent claims, thus Sack and Tsang teach the amended claim limitations.
Applicant argues Tsang does not teach or suggest the scrubbing motor translates the first brush assembly and second brush assembly independently with respect to the body. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant asserts the cantilevered, single-sided crankshaft drive system cannot be incorporated into the cleaning head of Goff or Davis. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As Examiner mentioned above, it is not necessary to bodily incorporate the brushes of Tsang to the systems of Goff or Davis. The scrubbing head is a structure that includes a pair or brushes. While Tsang teaches those skilled in the art would appreciate that there can be numerous mechanical arrangements enabling the reciprocating motion, a structure that holds a pair of brushes such as the brush 96 of Tsang can be combined with other references to teach the scrubbing head.
Finally, Applicant argues Goff, Davis, O’Brien, and Cao do not address deficiencies because they do not discuss particularly recited elements such as flexures, scrubbing head, first brush assembly, or second brush assembly. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Those references are cited to teach particular issue pertinent to the problems to be solved even if they may not be from the cleaning robot field.
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 SUKWOO JAMES CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7402. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00a-5:00p.
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, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. 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.
/S.J.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights