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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/12/2025. Claims 1-8 are currently pending examination.
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 dry-cleaning module configured to clean at least a part of the operating surface by means of dry cleaning disclosed as element 151 and equivalents thereof;
a driving unit for driving the cleaning head to reciprocate along a target surface disclosed as element 420 and equivalents thereof.
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 § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sun KR 2012-0088314.
Re claim 1, Sun discloses an automatic cleaning apparatus [figs. 1-4], comprising:
a moving platform 30 configured to move automatically on an operating surface; and
a cleaning module [100, 200, 80] disposed on the moving platform, and comprising:
a dry-cleaning module 80 configured to clean at least a part of the operating surface by means of dry cleaning; and
a wet cleaning module [100, 200] configured to clean at least a part of the operating surface by means of wet cleaning, wherein the wet cleaning module comprises:
a cleaning head 100 for cleaning the operating surface, and
a driving unit 200 for driving the cleaning head to reciprocate along a target surface, the target surface being a part of the operating surface, wherein a width of a lateral cleaning area of the cleaning head 120 is smaller than a width of a lateral cleaning area of the dry-cleaning module 80 [figs. 4].
Re claim 2, Sun further discloses wherein the driving unit 200 comprises:
a driving platform 250 connected to a bottom surface of the moving platform 30 for providing a driving force; and a supporting platform 140 detachably connected to the driving platform for supporting the cleaning head 120.
Re claim 3, wherein the supporting platform comprises: a cleaning substrate 300, which is freely movable on the supporting platform, and the cleaning substrate [capable of] driving the cleaning head 140 to substantially reciprocate within the width of the lateral cleaning area of the cleaning head.
Re claim 4, wherein the cleaning substrate comprises at least two first limiting positions [limiting longitudinal edges of mop mounting plate 100], and the at least two first limiting positions are respectively arranged on both sides of a traveling direction of the cleaning substrate 300.
Re claim 6, wherein the cleaning substrate comprises at least two second limiting positions [edges of mop mounting plate 100], and the at least two second limiting positions are arranged on both sides of the cleaning substrate in a direction perpendicular to the traveling direction, and the at least two second limiting positions enable the cleaning head to substantially reciprocate within the width of the lateral cleaning area of the cleaning head.
Re claim 7, wherein a distance between the at least two second limiting positions is smaller than the width of the lateral cleaning area of the cleaning head [fig. 4].
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.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun KR 2012-0088314 in view of Neidenback US 757,831.
Re claim 5, Sun discloses the invention as discussed above but fail to disclose wherein the first limiting positions are flexibly connected to the cleaning substrate.
Neidenbach teaches flexible limiting position 11 [fig. 1]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the flexible connected limiting position of Neidenbach with the cleaner of Sun, in order to yield the predictable result of limiting the movement of the mop in an elastic manner (col. 2, ll. 56-57).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun KR 2012-0088314 in view of DE 202016101311 U1 (DE1311).
Re claim 8, Sun discloses the invention as discussed above but fail to disclose wherein the at least two second limiting positions are provided with buffer pads on one side facing the cleaning substrate.
DE1311 teaches buffer pads 58 to allow limited horizontal movement [“vibrating screen 50 by means of a number of rubber strips 58 at the frame 15 suspended. The rubber strips 58 allow a limited horizontal movement of the vibrating screen”]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the buffer pads of DE1311 with the cleaner of Sun, in order to yield the predicable result of allowing limited horizontal movement of a reciprocating mop.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Carlos A. Rivera whose telephone number is (571)270-5697. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM -4PM.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.
C. A. R.
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3723
/C. A. RIVERA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723