FINAL ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 4th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that:
Longhenry describes a multi-station system for providing a cleaning solution to a floor cleaner in multiple steps. First, a concentrated solution is generated at the solution generator 18. Next, that concentrated solution is transported to a corresponding one of the dispensing stations 22 for dilution, and then a floor cleaner is fluidly coupled to that dispensing station 22 for receiving the diluted solution. As shown in FIG. 3 of Longhenry, the solution generator 18 includes an electrolysis cell 76 to generate a concentrated alkaline solution or a concentrated acidic solution.
One of skill in the art would not modify Zhang's base station to include Longhenry's electrolysis cell 76 as proposed in the Office action. In particular, Zhang's base station is specifically designed as a docking station-i.e., one which provides a docking interface for a corresponding robot to apply a cleaning fluid thereto. Accordingly, Zhang's base station is most analogous to Longhenry's dispensing station 22 which is also designed to fluidly couple with a floor cleaner. But Longhenry's electrolysis cell 76 is not located at the dispensing station 22. Rather, it is located in a separate, upstream station (i.e., the solution generator 18). Thus, Longhenry neither teaches nor motivates one to place a cell in a docking/base station, such as Zhang's base station.
Under the teachings of Longhenry, one would consider adding a solution generator to Zhang's system-separate from the base station-to generate a concentrated electrolyzed solution into a container that may be selectively removed from Zhang's base station (e.g., Zhang's first storage unit 121). Indeed, this modification would work in Zhang's system because Zhang's base station is already configured to dilute the cleaning solution. See Zhang, ||[0183]. But again, under this construction, the cell would not be a part of the base-station itself.
Consequently, Zhang and Longhenry, either alone or in combination, both fail to disclose and/or show each and every feature currently recited in amended claim 1. Moreover, the references themselves fail to provide any teaching, suggestion, or logical reason as to why one of skill in the art would modify Zhang to arrive at the claimed configuration.
The Examiner would respectfully disagree and respond that:
One of ordinary skill would NOT be inclined to add a solution generator that is separate from the base station in Zhang. Such a modification would be unnecessarily complicated and bulky in which one of ordinary skill would recognize. Zhang specifically discloses that the container (12) with reservoir is utilized to store the cleaning solution (paragraphs 21 & 173), and/or generate the cleaning solution by mixing water with a cleaning agent at the AT THE DOCK (paragraph 183), and dispense said cleaning solution AT THE DOCK (paragraphs 173-183; Figures 1-3). Thus, the dock of Zhang is already a combination of the generator (18) and the dispensing station (22) of Longhenry. As such, starting with the teachings of Zhang, one of ordinary skill would recognize that the entirety of the operation takes place on the dock (i.e., generation, storage and dispensing of the fluid at the docking station); turn to Longhenry and see that electrolyzed water generated by electrolysis cells, in which Zhang already discloses utilizing water as the cleaning solution, is far superior to plain water alone because electrolyzed water successfully kills microbes and bacteria while utilizing a liquid source that is far more convenient and less costly than traditional chemical disinfectants (paragraphs 3 and 23-28). Because the entirety of the operation (i.e., generation, storage and dispensing of the disinfecting cleaning solution of Zhang) would automatically conclude to just place the electrolytic cells in the dock of Zhang in order to produce the electrolyzed solution for simplicity and ease; instead of creating an entirely separate generation system as opined by the Applicant.
Thus, due to the entirety of the operating system taking place on the dock of Zhang (i.e., generation, storage and dispensing of the cleaning fluid from the dock), and the teaching of Longhenry that electrolyzed water is far superior to regular water alone as a disinfecting cleaning liquid, in which one ordinary skill would place the electrolyzed cells of Longhenry in the dock of Zhang for ease, simplicity and cost efficiency; the modification is considered proper, and this response is not persuasive.
Applicant also argues that:
The Applicant notes that the claims in the '966 application and the claims of the present application have both been amended such that they are not coextensive in scope; nor do the claims of the '966 application render obvious the claims of the present application. Accordingly, the Applicant requests withdrawal of the corresponding obviousness type double patenting rejection.
The Examiner would note:
Such an argument is persuasive, wherein the double patenting rejection has been withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1, 3-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0077858) in view of Longhenry et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2014/0001054).
Concerning claim 1, Zhang discloses a dock (1) for receiving a floor cleaner (2), the dock comprising:
A receiving unit for receiving the floor cleaner (Figure 2);
A reservoir (12) for containing water (paragraph 183); and
An applicator (112/113) arranged to apply the disinfecting liquid to at least part of a floor cleaner received in the receiving unit (paragraphs 169-173).
Regarding claim 10, Zhang further discloses a method of cleaning a floor cleaner (2), the method comprising the steps of:
Docking the floor cleaner (2) with the dock limitations as set forth above disclosed in claim 1 (Figures 1 & 21-23), such that the floor cleaner (2) is received in the receiving unit of the dock (1), and the applicator applying disinfecting liquid to at least part of the floor cleaner (paragraphs 169-173 and 210).
With respect to claims 1, 10 & 11, Zhang does not appear to disclose that the dock further comprises a cell arranged to create a disinfecting liquid from water, and the method further comprises the step of using the cell to create a disinfecting liquid from water, prior to the applicator applying the disinfecting liquid to at least part of the floor cleaner. Longhenry discloses a method and apparatus for applying a disinfecting fluid to a floor cleaner (24), wherein the apparatus includes a reservoir for containing the disinfecting fluid, and an applicator (22) for applying the disinfecting fluid to the floor cleaner (Abstract; Figures 1 & 2). The reference continues to disclose that the apparatus includes a cell (76) arranged to create a disinfecting liquid from water, and the method further comprises the step of using the cell (76) to create a disinfecting liquid from water, prior to the applicator applying the disinfecting liquid to the floor cleaner (paragraphs 32-38). The cell and associated method steps are provided because such a cell can use convenient and readily available components like water to create a disinfecting solution that successfully kills microbes and bacteria (paragraphs 3 and 23-28). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a cell arranged to create a disinfecting liquid from water in Zhang, wherein the method uses the cell to create a disinfecting liquid from water, prior to the applicator applying the disinfecting liquid to the floor cleaner because such a cell can use convenient and readily available components like water to create a disinfecting solution that successfully kills microbes and bacteria as exemplified by Longhenry.
As such, claims 1, 10 & 11 are not patentable over Zhang in view of Longhenry.
Regarding claim 3, Zhang also discloses that the floor cleaner (2) comprises a cleaning pad (22111), and the applicator (112/113) is arranged to apply the disinfecting liquid to the cleaning pad (22111) when the floor cleaner is received in the receiving unit (paragraphs 169-173).
Concerning claim 4, Zhang further discloses that the floor cleaner is capable of comprising a reservoir for containing waste liquid, and the applicator (112/113) is arranged to apply the disinfecting liquid to the reservoir for containing waste liquid when the floor cleaner is received in the receiving unit (Figures 1, 3, 4, 23 & 24). Note that the floor cleaner is not positively recited.
With respect to claim 5, Zhang continues to disclose that the floor cleaner is capable of comprising a passage through which waste liquid is arranged to pass, and the applicator (112/113) is arranged to apply the disinfecting liquid to the passage through which waste liquid is arranged to pass when the floor cleaner is received in the receiving unit (Figures 1, 3, 4, 23 & 24). Note that the floor cleaner is not positively recited.
Regarding claim 6, Zhang discloses that the disinfecting liquid is capable of comprising aqueous hydrogen peroxide (paragraph 183). Note that the disinfecting liquid is not positively recited.
Concerning claim 7, the reference continues to disclose a charging unit (14), the charging unit (14) arranged to charge a battery of a floor cleaner (2) received in the receiving unit (paragraph 186).
With respect to claim 8, Zhang also discloses a waste liquid reservoir (13) for receiving waste liquid from a floor cleaner received in the receiving unit (paragraphs 173, 174 and 181).
Concerning claim 9, Zhang discloses a cleaning fluid reservoir for supplying cleaning fluid to a floor cleaner received in the receiving unit (paragraph 210).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Zhang in view of Longhenry continues to disclose that the cell is in fluid communication with, and positioned downstream of the reservoir (12) and upstream of the applicator (112/113) in a fluid flow direction; as Longhenry discloses that said cell (76) is in fluid communication with, and positioned downstream of the reservoir and upstream of the applicator (22) as shown in Figures 1-3. Thus, one of ordinary skill modifying Zhang would place the cell downstream of the reservoir and upstream of the applicator as well in order to utilize a convenient and readily available source like water that creates a disinfecting solution that successfully kills microbes and bacteria as exemplified by Longhenry.
Therefore, these claims are not patentable over Zhang in view of Longhenry as well.
Regarding claims 14 & 16, Zhang when modified by Longhenry will create a configuration wherein the cell is arranged to create the disinfecting liquid from said water by the application of electricity and oxygen to the water (See paragraphs 36-39 of Longhenry).
Thus, these limitations are met by Zhang in view of Longhenry as well.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0077858) in view of Longhenry et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2014/0001054) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Field et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2007/0186954).
Zhang in view of Longhenry is relied upon as set forth above. Zhang in view of Longhenry does not appear to specifically disclose that the disinfecting liquid is aqueous hydrogen peroxide. Field discloses a method and apparatus for applying a disinfecting fluid to a floor cleaner (100), wherein the apparatus includes a reservoir (14) for containing water, an applicator (112) for applying a created disinfecting liquid to the floor cleaner, (Abstract; Figures 1, 2 and 10A), and a cell (5) arranged to create the disinfecting liquid from water (Figures 3-5) . The reference continues to disclose that the disinfecting liquid is aqueous hydrogen peroxide because hydrogen peroxide is a strong oxidizer that can further boost the sanitizing properties of the water (paragraph 109). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize aqueous hydrogen peroxide as the disinfecting liquid produce by the cell of Zhang in view of Longhenry because hydrogen peroxide is a strong oxidizer that can further boost the sanitizing properties of water as exemplified by Field.
Therefore, claim 15 is not patentable over Zhang in view of Longhenry and 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 KEVIN C JOYNER whose telephone number is (571)272-2709. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-4:30PM.
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 MARCHESCHI can be reached at (571) 272-1374. 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 JOYNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799