DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Acknowledgements
This office action is in response to the communication filed 3/16/2026.
Claims 1 and 3-20 are pending and have been examined.
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 § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhao (CN216262266U) (cited by Applicant) (machine translation attached).
Re claim 1, Zhao discloses a cleaning device (title, abstract) comprising:
a power supply (ref. 150) for providing power;
a steam generating device (ref. 130) comprising:
a steam boiler (ref. 131) configured to heat a liquid to generate steam, and a temperature sensor (claim 5 “a temperature sensor”) arranged on the steam boiler (“sense the temperature of the heating element 131”), wherein the steam boiler is electrically connected to the power supply, and wherein the temperature sensor is configured to measure a temperature of the steam boiler or the liquid; and
a controller (claim 1 control device) electrically connected to the power supply and the temperature sensor, wherein the controller is configured to:
obtain the temperature measured by the temperature sensor during heating of the steam boiler, compare the temperature with a preset working temperature of the steam boiler (claim 5, p. 4 ¶ 9-14), and
adjust an output voltage of the power supply based on a comparison of the temperature with the preset working temperature (“regulate the output voltage”).
Regarding “wherein the controller is further configured to: obtain a maximum output voltage of the power supply, compare the maximum output voltage with a preset working voltage of the steam boiler, and control the output voltage of the power supply to output at the preset working voltage if the maximum output voltage is greater than the preset working voltage, or output at the maximum output voltage if the maximum output voltage is below the preset working voltage”, Zhao further discloses a maximum voltage (p. 4 ¶ 12 “full voltage (i.e., maximum voltage)”) and “partial voltage”, such that voltage is necessarily regulated to below the maximum voltage, when the preset working voltage is below the maximum, otherwise at maximum output voltage (see “the control device includes a voltage regulation module… the voltage regulation module is configured to regulate the output voltage of the battery pack 150 to be alternately switched between at least two preset voltage values” where the “higher preset voltage value” is set to “full voltage (i.e., maximum voltage)”. Thus the “a lower preset voltage value” necessarily involved a comparison with the higher preset/maximum voltage, in order to in fact be “lower”. The voltage regulation module then outputs said lower preset voltage value when the lower preset voltage is lower, and it is then further expected that if the battery is sagging or low that a typical voltage regulation module absent a step-up/booster will simply output the current maximum input voltage despite the control signal to the voltage regulation module, satisfying the limitation as claimed).
Re claim 5, Zhao further discloses wherein: the steam generating device comprises a power control switch (claims 1 and 5 control device electrically connected to the temperature sensor…to regulate the output of voltage of the battery pack; see also p. 3 ¶ 19 “transformer or a converter and other equipment”) connected in series between the power supply and the steam boiler, the power control switch is electrically connected to the controller, and the controller is configured to control the output voltage of the power supply to the steam boiler through the power control switch.
Re claim 10, Zhao further disclose wherein the controller is configured to control an output voltage of the power supply to heat the steam boiler and generate steam at the output voltage (abstract, claims 1 and 5 “outputs a water-steam mixtures”).
Claim Rejectiorns - 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 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.
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 3-4, 6-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao, as applied above.
Re claims 3-4, Regarding “wherein if a difference between the temperature and the preset working temperature is greater than a preset threshold range, the controller is configured to control the power supply to adjust the output voltage so that the difference between the temperature and the preset working temperature is within the preset threshold range”, this limitation reads on well-known principals of tolerance in feedback control systems, known to those of ordinary skill in the art. As such, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt a tolerance/preset threshold range from the preset working temperature before controller the boiler for additional heating to/until the temperature is within the tolerance/preset threshold range. Re claim 4, Regarding “wherein if the temperature is greater than the preset working temperature and a difference is greater than a preset threshold range, the controller is configured to control the power supply to decrease the output voltage, and if the temperature is below the preset working temperature and the difference is greater than the preset threshold range, the controller is configured to control the power supply to increase the output voltage”, Zhao discloses regulating the voltage by increasing or reducing the electric heating power (abstract, claim 1 “increased or decreased”).
Re claim 6, Regarding “wherein the power control switch comprises a field-effect transistor, and the controller is configured to control the opening and closing of the power control switch to adjust a duty cycle of the output voltage of the power supply”, Zhao further discloses a transformed or a converter (p. 3 ¶ 19). As such, the use of well-known FETs for adjusting a duty cycle of the output voltage is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, for the purpose of using readily available, off-shelf components for regulating voltage quickly and efficiently.
Re claim 7, Regarding “wherein the controller is configured to determine whether the temperature is greater than or equal to a preset over-temperature threshold, and the controller is configured to control the power control switch to disconnect the power supply from the steam boiler based on a determination that temperature is greater than or equal to the preset over-temperature threshold”, the use of a safety shutoff temperature is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, moreover, it being simply an extreme end of the temperature regulation as disclosed by Zhao, i.e. voltage decreased to zero/disconnect at some temperature detection relative to the preset.
Re claim 9, Regarding “wherein the temperature sensor comprises a negative temperature coefficient (NTC) sensor with an unencapsulated metal package”, the use of well-known off-the-shelf components for measuring temperature is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.07 Art Recognized Suitability for its Intended Use.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao, as applied above, in view of Liang (CN 106948149 A) (machine translation attached).
Re claim 8, Zhao discloses as shown above and further discloses a liquid supply tank (ref. 121) comprising the liquid, wherein: the steam generating device comprises a steam pump (ref. 122) electrically connected to the controller, the steam boiler is connected to the liquid supply tank through the steam pump (see figs. 1-2), and the steam pump is used to pump the liquid in the liquid supply tank to the steam boiler for heating and steam generation; and based on a determination that the temperature is greater than or equal to the preset over-temperature threshold, the controller is configured to control the power control switch to disconnect the power supply from the steam boiler (see rejection to claim 7 above). Zhao does not disclose based on a determination that the temperature is greater than or equal to the preset over-temperature threshold, control the steam pump to pump the liquid in the liquid supply tank to the steam boiler at maximum output power.
However, Liang teaches itis known int the steam control art (abstract) to control output of the water as a function of the temperature difference (p. 5 ¶ 10 when the difference exceeds the first preset value…superheating…opening of control valve).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the controller of Zhao to further control the steam pump to pump more liquid to the liquid supply tank upon detecting large temperature differences, in order to better regulate the heated water.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments with respect to Zhao, Examiner respectfully disagrees. At issue is the language “compare the maximum output voltage with a preset working voltage of the steam boiler; control an output voltage of the power supply to output at the preset working voltage based on the maximum output voltage being greater than the preset working voltage…” Here, Examiner cites the controller controlling the voltage utilizing “a voltage regulation module” to “a lower preset voltage value” that must inherently be less than “a higher preset voltage value”. And it is specifically this “higher preset voltage value” that is set to “full voltage (i.e., maximum voltage)”. That is, to arrive at a lower preset voltage value includes the step of first determining the maximum voltage and setting a voltage there below as a comparison. Applicant appears to be confusing the comparison of the temperature with the inherent comparison of the voltage source input/maximum voltage in defining a lower preset voltage value.
Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims. Here, Applicant has not positively claimed any controller logic specifically using the results of the comparison in an “if, then, else” statement. Rather, Applicant broadly claims a comparison of two arbitrary variables, “a maximum output voltage” and “a preset working voltage” and requires only outputting one of the two (Examiner highlights each output is separated by “or”, thus the claim requires only one of the two). In fact, Applicant does not claim a relation between the maximum output voltage nor the preset working voltage with “adjust the output voltage of the power supply”. As such, Zhao’s teaching the maximum output voltage is by definition of Zhao higher than the “lower preset voltage value” and outputting the lower preset voltage value, satisfies the limitation of “based on” as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“Understanding How a Voltage Regulator Works”, Analog Devices, 2009. (Available at https://www.analog.com/media/en/technical-documentation/technical-articles/PM_vr_design_08451a.pdf). note comparators in a typical voltage regulator and the use of output feedback in controlling the input source.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KEVIN LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7299. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am to 6:30pm.
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, Michael Barr can be reached on 571-272-1414. 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.
KEVIN G. LEE
Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/KEVIN G LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 1711
/MICHAEL E BARR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights