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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-13 are pending. Claim 1, 2, 3, 9, 11, 12, 13 is currently amended.
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) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farmer (US 20180199785 A1) in view of Yun (KR 20170090688 A) and Oshida (JP H05245086 A).
With respect to claim 1, Farmer discloses An automatic cleaning apparatus comprising: a mobile platform configured to move automatically on an operating surface (mobile platform as robot body 105, fig. 1, [0068], robot automatically [autonomously] moves as in [0047]); and a cleaning module disposed on the mobile platform (cleaning module including a dry cleaner 200, fig. 2; [0051]), and comprising: a dry cleaner configured to clean at least a part of the operating surface by dry cleaning (a dry cleaner 200, fig. 2, [0051-0052], having floor extractors 265, 270, fig. 2 to clean surfaces as in [0052-0054], Farmer also provides for vacuum in [0060]); and a dry cleaner floating lifter connected to the dry cleaner and configured to enable the dry cleaner to passively move vertically relative to the mobile platform (the linkage arrangement suspending housing 215 from a frame 205, fig. 7, as in [0055] including suspension linkage 1600, fig. 14, [0094], allows the dry cleaning brush to move passively, in response to undulations during travel, over the floor as described in [0055])
Farmer does not explicitly disclose a wet cleaner configured to clean at least a part of the operating surface by wet cleaning, and a wet cleaner four-link lifter disposed between the wet cleaner and the mobile platform to enable the wet cleaner to automatically lift and lower relative to the mobile platform, the wet cleaner four-link lifter is a parallelogram structure, comprising: a first connecting end for providing active power to switch the wet cleaner between a lifting state and a lowering state; and a second connecting end disposed opposite to the first connecting end and rotating with rotation of the first connecting end.
Yun, in the same field of endeavor, as related to cleaning, teaches of providing a wet cleaner configured to clean at least a part of the operating surface by wet cleaning (wet cleaner as mop plate 30, figs. 2-3, [0024], and provides wet cleaning as it can wipe [mop] a wet floor- see description of prior art in fig. 1 and the water supply in [0005] of Yun; Yun provides this together with a dry cleaner/vacuum as described in [0019], with relation to the intake duct 12 and brush 14 shown in fig. 2; also providing a mop plate connector 30, fig. 4 with an elevator guide 45 with a lifting sleeve 45a and lifting rail 45b to allow the mop plate to be lifted; [0035]). Yun describes that this arrangement enables the cleaner to handle multiple types of floors ([0007,0009-0010]).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Farmer, with the wet cleaner taught by Yun, for the purpose of handling multiple types of floors.
Regarding a wet cleaner four-link lifter disposed between the wet cleaner and the mobile platform to enable the wet cleaner to automatically lift and lower relative to the mobile platform, Yun, as noted above, provides a lifting arrangement (Yun, also providing a mop plate connector 30, fig. 4 with an elevator guide 45 with a lifting sleeve 45a and lifting rail 45b to allow the mop plate to be lifted; [0035]). Oshida, in the same filed of endeavor, related to cleaning, teaches of a wet cleaner four-link lifter (wet cleaner four link lifter including links 42 and 43, fig. 7, symmetrically disposed, [0033]) disposed between the wet cleaner (disposed between an analogous wet cleaner pad 62, fig. 7; [0042-0045]) and the mobile platform (1, fig. 7; [0015]) to enable the wet cleaner to automatically lift and lower relative to the mobile platform (the wet cleaner can automatically lift and lower because of a spring bias using spring 48, fig. 7; [0039], to follow the floor) , the wet cleaner four-link lifter is a parallelogram structure ([0033] describes parallelogram link), comprising: a first connecting end for providing active power to switch the wet cleaner between a lifting state and a lowering state (first connecting end proximate to 49, [0034], there is a stopper 5 with a claw piece 5a, fig. 8 at that end [0040], where active power can be applied to release the claw to allow the wet cleaner to switch from a lifting state to a lowering state by operating the stopper/claw; claim does not require a motor or any specific source of active power and can be met by enabling the active power to be provided manually); and a second connecting end disposed opposite to the first connecting end and rotating with rotation of the first connecting end (a second end at the linkage proximate to 75, fig. 7, because it is a rotating bar, it rotates together as described in [0038,0040-0042]). Oshida describes this arrangement as improving a cleaning effect, while also enabling smooth movement while not cleaning ([0006]).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Farmer, with four bar parallelogram linkage of Oshida for improved cleaning, while also enabling smooth movement while not cleaning.
With respect to claim 2, Farmer, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches the dry cleaner floating lifter is a parallelogram dry cleaner four- link lifter configured to switch the dry cleaner between a lifting state and a lowering state under action of an external force (Farmer, 4 link structure with links 1305, 1405, as shown in fig. 14, [0092, 0094], there are 4 links 1610a-d, fig. 16, and [0092], provides that link 1305 can be link 1610a, in fig. 16; see [0108-0109]; the links allow for vertical translation in [0109]).
With respect to claim 3, Farmer, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 2 above, and further teaches wherein, the dry cleaner floating lifter comprises: a first fixed bracket fixedly connected to the mobile platform (Farmer, first fixed bracket 205, fig. 8, fixed to robot cleaner as shown in fig. 2 [205 is shown as a underlined reference character in fig. 2]; [0051,0055]), a second fixed bracket fixedly connected to the dry cleaner (Farmer, second fixed bracket 215, fig. 8, [0072], with the dry cleaner as brushes/floor extractors 265, 270, mounted therein in [0075]) and a connecting rod pair (Farmer, connecting rod pairs 1610a-1610b, figs. 16-18; [0108-0109]), having one end rotatably connected to the first fixed bracket through movable studs (Farmer, first end connected to first bracket at 820a, 820b, though studs, as in figs. 8, 18, [0118], studs as pin joints in [0108]), and another end rotatably connected to the second fixed bracket through movable studs (connected to second fixed bracket at 825a, 825b, figs. 8, 17, through slotted pin joints [movable studs] as in [0108]).
With respect to claim 4, Farmer, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 3 above, and further teaches wherein, the connecting rod pair comprises: a first connecting rod pair (Farmer, first rod pair 1601a, 1601b, fig. 16; [0108]), having one end rotatably connected to a first end of the first fixed bracket through movable studs (Farmer, previously explained in rejection of claim 3, above, and applies to all 4 linkages/rods, see [0108]), and a second end rotatably connected to a first end of the second fixed bracket through movable studs (Farmer, previously explained in rejection of claim 3, above, and applies to all 4 linkages/rods, see [0108]); and a second connecting rod pair disposed opposite to the first connecting rod pair (Farmer, second rod pair 1601c, 1601d, fig. 16; [0108]), and having one end rotatably connected to a second end of the first fixed bracket through movable studs (Farmer, previously explained in rejection of claim 3, above, and applies to all 4 linkages/rods, see [0108]), and a second end rotatably connected to a second end of the second fixed bracket -through movable studs (Farmer, previously explained in rejection of claim 3, above, and applies to all 4 linkages/rods, see [0108]).
With respect to claim 5, Farmer, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 4 above, and further teaches the first connecting rod pair comprises a first connecting rod and a second connecting rod arranged in parallel (Farmer, parallel rods 1601a, 1601b, figs. 16-17, [0108]), wherein one end of each of the first connecting rod and the second connecting rod is provided with a first shaft hole, and another end of each of the first connecting rod and the second connecting rod is provided with a second shaft hole (Farmer, the ends of the connecting rods have shaft holes as shown in fig. 16, see pin joints 1925, 1930, figs. 19a-19b, [0120]); and the movable studs rotatably fix the first connecting rod and the second connecting rod to the first end of the first fixed bracket through the first shaft holes, and the movable studs rotatably fix the first connecting rod and the second connecting rod to the first end of the second fixed bracket through the second shaft holes (pin joints inserted in carriers 820, 825, as described in [0120], and as described in the rejection of claim 3 above, the ends of the rods are connected to the brackets at 820a, 820b, 825a, 825b shown in fig. 8, figs. 13 and 14 show the rods rotating relative to 820a and 825a; [0092-0094]).
With respect to claim 6, Farmer, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 5 above, and further teaches wherein, the second connecting rod pair comprises a third connecting rod and a fourth connecting rod arranged in parallel (Farmer, parallel rods 1601c, 1601d, figs. 16-17, [0108]), wherein one end of each of the third connecting rod and the fourth connecting rod is provided with a third shaft hole, and another of each of the third connecting rod and the fourth connecting rod is provided with a fourth shaft hole (Farmer, the ends of the connecting rods have shaft holes as shown in fig. 16, see pin joints 1925, 1930, figs. 19a-19b, [0120]); and the movable studs rotatably fix the third connecting rod and the fourth connecting rod to the second end of the first fixed bracket through the third shaft holes, and the movable studs rotatably fix the third connecting rod and the fourth connecting rod to the second end of the second fixed bracket through the fourth shaft holes (pin joints inserted in carriers 820, 825, as described in [0120], and as described in the rejection of claim 3 above, the ends of the rods are connected to the brackets at 820a, 820b, 825a, 825b shown in fig. 8, figs. 13 and 14 show the rods rotating relative to 820a and 825a; [0092-0094]; his arrangement is symmetrical relative to axis 150, fig. 1 as in [0113]).
With respect to claim 7, Farmer, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 6 above, and further teaches the first fixed bracket comprises: a first fixed portion protruding from the first fixed bracket and extending laterally outward, for carrying the first connecting rod pair (Farmer, fixed portion 820a, though studs, as in figs. 8, 17-18, [0118], carries first rod pair through pin joint as [0108])
With respect to claim 8, Farmer, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 7 above, and further teaches the first fixed bracket comprises: characterized in that, the first fixed bracket further comprises: a second fixed portion disposed symmetrically with the first fixed portion for carrying the second connecting rod pair (Farmer, fixed portion 820b, though studs, as in figs. 8, 17-18, [0118], carries second rod pair through pin joint as [0108])
With respect to claim 9, Farmer, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 5 above, and further teaches the dry cleaner floating lifter further comprises: a flexible connector connected between the first fixed bracket and the second fixed bracket, wherein the second fixed bracket moves vertically relative to the first fixed bracket through the flexible connector in response that the operating surface is uneven (Farmer, flexible diaphragm, 410, fig 9, [0111], positioned between first bracket 205 and second bracket 215, figs. 13-14, the brackets move relatively as shown in the two positions of figs. 13-14).
With respect to claim 10, Farmer, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 4 above, and further teaches wherein, the first connecting rod pair or the second connecting rod pair is a hollowed-out structure (Farmer, hollowed out structure as the ends of the connecting rods have shaft holes as shown in fig. 16, see pin joints 1925, 1930, figs. 19a-19b, [0120]).
With respect to claim 11, Farmer, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 6 above, and further teaches the dry cleaner floating lifter further comprises: a flexible connector connected between the first fixed bracket and the second fixed bracket, wherein the second fixed bracket moves vertically relative to the first fixed bracket through the flexible connector in response that the operating surface is uneven (Farmer, flexible diaphragm, 410, fig 9, [0111], positioned between first bracket 205 and second bracket 215, figs. 13-14, the brackets move relatively as shown in the two positions of figs. 13-14).
With respect to claim 12, Farmer, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 7 above, and further teaches the dry cleaner floating lifter further comprises: a flexible connector connected between the first fixed bracket and the second fixed bracket, wherein the second fixed bracket moves vertically relative to the first fixed bracket through the flexible connector in response that the operating surface is uneven (Farmer, flexible diaphragm, 410, fig 9, [0111], positioned between first bracket 205 and second bracket 215, figs. 13-14, the brackets move relatively as shown in the two positions of figs. 13-14).
With respect to claim 13, Farmer, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 8 above, and further teaches the dry cleaner floating lifter further comprises: a flexible connector connected between the first fixed bracket and the second fixed bracket, wherein the second fixed bracket moves vertically relative to the first fixed bracket through the flexible connector in response that the operating surface is uneven (Farmer, flexible diaphragm, 410, fig 9, [0111], positioned between first bracket 205 and second bracket 215, figs. 13-14, the brackets move relatively as shown in the two positions of figs. 13-14).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (response page 6-7) that Oshida does not provide for a wet cleaner four-link lifter that automatically lifts and lowers the wet cleaner, but rather one that is manually actuated to the lifted position and also floats off the ground. As the examiner noted in the office action, the floating arrangement is “automatic” because of the spring causes the mop to lift/lower to follow the floor as the cleaner moves (which does not need manual intervention to operate, and is therefore automatic - which does not exclude passive movement if it can happen without human intervention). It appears that the applicant takes a narrow view of the term “automatic” here, and the applicant may wish to consider further defining the meaning of “automatic” here (for example, to define that a motor is provided to cause the lifting “automatically”, without human power/intervention).
Applicant also takes the position (response page 7) that there is no motivation to combine Yun and Oshida. The examiner’s response is that Yun provides that the mop operates together with a dry cleaner/vacuum as described in [0019], and that Oshida does not exclude multiple cleaners or discourage/teach away from using multiple cleaners. Furthermore, the lifting arrangement being different in both Yun and Oshida does not discourage the combination as Yun is used for teaching multiple cleaners (applied to Farmer) and Oshida provides for a specific advantage of improved cleaning with smooth movement. In either case, the application of the references does not require actual physical combination of the elements, and the combination did not change the principle of operation of the primary reference (Farmer) or render the reference inoperable for its intended purpose as the cleaner would still be suitable for cleaning. See MPEP 2145.
Applicant finally argues that there is a lack of motivation to combine the references (response pages 7-9). On the point regarding physical incompatibility of Farmer, the arrangement in the rejection provides for a separate mop, so the lack of space with respect to the dry cleaner proximate to the dry cleaner is not persuasive. Furthermore, Yun provides for a sufficient teaching to add in a mop in a robotic cleaner, demonstrating that space is not an issue, and does not require complete reconstruction of Farmer. As for adding components of Yun (the lifting rail, which was not specially taught in in the rejection, but rather mentioned to provide background, and Oshida, the prior art is sufficient for a person of ordinary skill in the art to add any necessary lifting components to Farmer, and the applicant did not demonstrate otherwise. As noted above, the application of the references does not require actual physical combination of the elements. As for the point that the references solve different problems, with different means, the examiner notes that since the references are in the same field of endeavor, one of ordinary skill in the art could find motivation to combine the references that are different than that of the instant invention (or that of another reference). See MPEP 2145 (“A teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine references that is found in the prior art is an appropriate rationale for determining obviousness”).
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 Steven Huang whose telephone number is (571)272-6750. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 6:30 am to 2:30 pm, Friday 6:30 am to 11:00 am (Eastern Time).
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.
/Steven Huang/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MAKENA S MARKMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
