DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 13-20 are newly submitted. Claims 9-13 are subject to examination on the merits.
Claims 1-8 are withdrawn from consideration because they are directed to a non-elected invention (see 06/10/2025 Election). Claims 14-20 are withdrawn because they are directed to a non-elected invention (see “Election/Restriction” section below for more explanation).
Election/Restriction
Newly submitted claims 14-20 are directed to an invention that lacks unity with the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
The technical features shared between Claim 14 and originally filed Claim 1 are not “special” technical features, because they do not make a contribution over the prior art in view of MEYER (German Publication DE102010017211A1) and KOETZ et al. (US PGPUB 20180213992).
The technical features shared between Claim 14 and originally filed Claim 1 are not “special” technical features, because they do not make a contribution over the prior art in view of MEYER and WU et al. (US PGPUB 20230225576).
The technical features shared between Claim 14 and originally filed Claim 1 are not “special” technical features, because they do not make a contribution over the prior art in view of MEYER and AL-MOHSSEN et al. (US PGPUB 20210096560).
The technical features shared between Claim 14 and originally filed Claim 1 are not “special” technical features, because they do not make a contribution over the prior art in view of MEYER and MORIN et al. (US PGPUB 20200000302).
The technical features shared between Claim 14 and originally filed Claim 9 are not “special” technical features, because they do not make a contribution over the prior art in view of MEYER and KOETZ.
The technical features shared between Claim 14 and originally filed Claim 9 are not “special” technical features, because they do not make a contribution over the prior art in view of MEYER and WU.
The technical features shared between Claim 14 and originally filed Claim 9 are not “special” technical features, because they do not make a contribution over the prior art in view of MEYER and AL-MOHSSEN.
The technical features shared between Claim 14 and originally filed Claim 9 are not “special” technical features, because they do not make a contribution over the prior art in view of MEYER and MORIN.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 14-20 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. of the other invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s 11/11/2025 arguments (“Remarks”) have been fully considered.
Applicant contends that the prior art of record does not teach certain limitations (e.g., “bristles extending laterally outside the first brush width”) of the claims as amended. Because those limitations are newly introduced through amendment, they are addressed in the updated 35 USC § 103 rejections below.
The Examiner notes that it’s well understood, routine, and conventional for a robotic vacuum cleaner to comprise “a first brush arranged to rotate about a horizontal axis and having a first brush width along the horizontal axis, and a second brush in the form of a side brush arranged to rotate about a substantially vertical axis, the second brush comprising bristles extending laterally outside the first brush width.” A non-limiting list of examples is below:
KOETZ et al. (US PGPUB 20180213992) at Figs. 1-2, ¶¶ 0023-24 (teaching a first roll brush 2 and a second side brush 12);
WU et al. (US PGPUB 20230225576) at Fig. 4, ¶ 0041 (teaching a first roll brush 151 and a second side brush 152);
AL-MOHSSEN et al. (US PGPUB 20210096560) at Figs. 2, 3A-3B, ¶¶ 0066-71 (teaching a first brush 118 and a second side brush 126);
MORIN et al. (US PGPUB 20200000302) at Figs. 2-3, ¶¶ 0039 (teaching a first roll brush 108A and a second side brush 110).
Applicant contends that MEYER does not teach a “side” brush (see Remarks at 7) because the MEYER teaches a “centrally located” cleaning tool holder 15 that receives a cleaning tool “directly underneath the cleaning device” (see id.). This is not persuasive.
PNG
media_image1.png
352
480
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
352
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As a preliminary matter, because Applicant did not act as its own lexicographer—i.e., the specification does not provide any specific definition for “side brush”—the claim term “side brush” is interpreted according to its plain meaning.
First, Applicant’s arguments do not provide any specific definition for the word “side” (see Remarks at 7), so it’s unclear what Applicant considers to be a “side.” The Examiner has provided Annotated Figs. 2 & 4 of MEYER above to show that the word “side” is very broad such that a wide variety of locations can be considered a “side.”
Second, it’s unclear how Applicant considers cleaning tool holder 15 to be “centrally located” and it’s unclear how the location of cleaning tool holder 15 is relevant.
Third, if the cleaning tool is “directly underneath the cleaning device”—as alleged by Applicant—then the cleaning tool may be considered to be at a “side” of the robotic cleaning device 1 (see Annotated Fig. 4 of MEYER above). In other words, Applicant’s arguments are undermined by the assertion “directly underneath the cleaning device.”
In sum, Applicant does not provide sufficient support for its argument that MEYER fails to teach a “side” brush.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites “the second brush comprising bristles extending laterally outside the first brush width” at lines 7-8.
First, it’s unclear what “laterally” means in this context, because the claim does not specify any reference point (e.g., a point or a line) from which something is considered “lateral.” Also, it’s unclear which direction or directions are considered “lateral.”
Second, it’s unclear what’s meant by “outside the first brush width.” The specification discloses that the second brush 20 actually overlaps with first brush 16 (see Figs. 2 & 4A), which means some bristles are actually inside the first brush width. What’s more confusing is that any given bristle can be both inside and outside the first brush width, depending on the rotational position of that bristle (see Figs. 2 & 4A).
The remaining claims are rejected because they depend on Claim 9.
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.
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.
Claims 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MEYER (German Publication DE102010017211A1, as translated by Espacenet), in view of KOETZ et al. (US PGPUB 20180213992).
Regarding Claim 9, MEYER teaches a method for operating a robotic cleaner system (see, e.g., Figs. 2-5, ¶¶ 0001, 0004-0030-36, 0040-43) comprising a robotic vacuum cleaner (cleaning device 1, see Figs. 2-5, ¶¶ 0030-36, 0040-43) configured for autonomous travel along a surface to be cleaned (see, e.g., ¶¶ 0001, 0004, 0016, 0030, 0042) and a stationary base station (base station 7, see Figs. 2-5, ¶¶ 0030-36, 0040-43).
MEYER teaches that the surface to be cleaned comprises a carpeted surface portion (see ¶¶ 0010, 0054).
MEYER teaches that the robotic vacuum cleaner (cleaning device 1) comprises a first brush (brush 3) arranged to rotate about a horizontal axis (see Figs. 2-5, ¶¶ 0030, 0032-34; see also annotated Fig. 2 below). MEYER teaches that the first brush (brush 3) has a first brush width (see annotated Fig. 2 below), which is along the horizontal axis (see id.).
PNG
media_image3.png
443
496
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
459
485
media_image4.png
Greyscale
MEYER teaches that the robotic vacuum cleaner (cleaning device 1) comprises a second brush (out of the plurality of cleaning tools 13, one that’s tailored for hard floor, see ¶¶ 0008, 0010, 0018, 0054, Figs. 3-5; indeed, different cleaning tools 13 may be tailored for different surface types, see id.). MEYER teaches that the second brush is in the form of a side brush (see Figs. 2-5, cleaning tool 13 is off-center) arranged to rotate about a substantially vertical axis (see Figs. 2-5, ¶¶ 0018, 0034, 0048, 0058).
MEYER teaches that the second brush comprises bristles (see Figs. 3-5, ¶¶ 0008, 0018, 0045, 0051) extending laterally outside the first brush width (see annotated Figs. 2 & 4 above, the bristles of cleaning tool 13 extend laterally with respect to the first brush width and the bristles do not overlap with the first brush width).
MEYER teaches that the second brush is detachably connected to a main body of the robotic vacuum cleaner (see Figs. 3-5, ¶¶ 0004, 0050, 0058, each cleaning tool 13 can be removably mounted to cleaning device 1).
MEYER’s method comprises:
disengaging the second brush (a cleaning tool 13 that’s tailored for hard floor) from the main body of the robotic vacuum cleaner in the stationary base station (see Figs. 3-5, ¶¶ 0004, 0048-50, exchanging cleaning tools 13 at base station 7, i.e., removing a cleaning tool from cleaning device 1 and installing a different cleaning tool into cleaning device 1; see also ¶¶ 0010, 0016, 0054, selecting a cleaning tool for installation based on surface type);
exiting the robotic vacuum cleaner from the stationary base station (see Fig. 6, ¶ 0049, cleaning device 1 leaves base station 7) without the second brush (as explained above, the installed cleaning tool is selected based on surface type, which means when cleaning the carpeted surface portion, a cleaning tool 13 that’s tailored for hard floor would not be installed in cleaning device 1);
cleaning the carpeted surface portion (as explained above, the surface to be cleaned comprises a carpeted surface portion) with the robotic vacuum cleaner without the second brush (as explained above, the installed cleaning tool is selected based on surface type, which means when cleaning the carpeted surface portion, a cleaning tool 13 that’s tailored for hard floor would not be installed in cleaning device 1).
Although MEYER does not explicitly teach “determining a position of the carpeted surface portion,” this step is still reasonably expected in MEYER’s method because MEYER teaches the following: the system creates a map/cartography of the environment (see ¶¶ 0007, 0039), wherein sensors are used to detect surface types (see ¶¶ 0004, 0010, 0054); the particular cleaning tool 13—for installation into cleaning device 1—is selected based on detected surface type (see ¶¶ 0010, 0016, 0054).
Alternatively, if MEYER’s teachings do not clearly envisage “determining a position of the carpeted surface portion,” it still would’ve been obvious to one skilled in the art to do so. First, by determining the positions of different surface types (e.g., hard floor, carpet), a robotic cleaner system can customize cleaning based on surface type (see KOETZ at ¶¶ 0003, 0028). Given this benefit, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to modify MEYER’s method to incorporate determining a position of the carpeted surface portion. Second, it’s already well understood, routine, and conventional for a robotic cleaner system to determine a position of a carpeted surface portion (see KOETZ at ¶¶ 0018, 0025). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007); MPEP § 2143, A.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of MEYER and KOETZ teaches the method according to claim 9. The combination teaches wherein the surface to be cleaned comprises a hard floor surface portion (see MEYER at ¶¶ 0010, 0054), and the method further comprises:
engaging the second brush (a cleaning tool 13 that’s tailored for hard floor) with the main body in the stationary base station (see MEYER at Figs. 3-5, ¶¶ 0004, 0010, 0016, 0054, 0048-50, installing cleaning tool 13 into cleaning device 1);
exiting the robotic vacuum cleaner from the stationary base station (see MEYER at Fig. 6, ¶ 0049, cleaning device 1 leaves base station 7) with the second brush (as explained above, the installed cleaning tool is selected based on surface type, which means when cleaning the hard floor surface portion, a cleaning tool 13 that’s tailored for hard floor would be installed in cleaning device 1);
cleaning the hard floor surface portion with the robotic vacuum cleaner with the first brush (cleaning with brush 3, see MEYER at ¶ 0056) and the second brush (as explained above, the installed cleaning tool is selected based on surface type, which means when cleaning the hard floor surface portion, a cleaning tool 13 that’s tailored for hard floor would be installed in cleaning device 1).
Although MEYER does not explicitly teach “determining a position of the hard floor surface portion,” this step is still reasonably expected in MEYER’s method because MEYER teaches the following: the system creates a map/cartography of the environment (see ¶¶ 0007, 0039), wherein sensors are used to detect surface types (see ¶¶ 0004, 0010, 0054); the particular cleaning tool 13—for installation into cleaning device 1—is selected based on detected surface type (see ¶¶ 0010, 0016, 0054).
Alternatively, if MEYER’s teachings do not clearly envisage “determining a position of the hard floor surface portion,” it still would’ve been obvious to one skilled in the art to do so. First, by determining the positions of different surface types (e.g., hard floor, carpet), a robotic cleaner system can customize cleaning based on surface type (see KOETZ at ¶¶ 0003, 0028). Given this benefit, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to modify MEYER’s method to incorporate determining a position of the hard floor surface portion. Second, it’s already well understood, routine, and conventional for a robotic cleaner system to determine a position of a hard floor surface portion (see KOETZ at ¶¶ 0018, 0025). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A.
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of MEYER and KOETZ teaches the method according to claim 9. The combination teaches: wherein the robotic vacuum cleaner comprises one or more sensors (see MEYER at ¶¶ 0004, 0010, 0054); and wherein the step of determining a position of the carpeted surface portion—as explained above, MEYER reasonably suggests this step or it would’ve been obvious to perform this step—comprises utilizing the one or more sensors to determine the position of the carpeted surface portion (see MEYER at ¶¶ 0004, 0010, 0054; see also KOETZ at ¶¶ 0018, 0025).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of MEYER and KOETZ teaches the method according to claim 10. The combination teaches: wherein the robotic vacuum cleaner comprises one or more sensors (see MEYER at ¶¶ 0004, 0010, 0054); and wherein the step of determining a position of the hard floor surface portion—as explained above, MEYER reasonably suggests this step or it would’ve been obvious to perform this step—comprises utilizing the one or more sensors to determine the position of the hard floor surface portion (see MEYER at ¶¶ 0004, 0010, 0054; see also KOETZ at ¶¶ 0018, 0025).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of MEYER and KOETZ teaches the method according to claim 9. As explained above, the combination teaches the bristles extend laterally. The combination teaches the bristles extend laterally beyond the main body (see MEYER at Figs. 4-5, bristles of cleaning tool 13 extend beyond the body of cleaning device 1).
Relevant Prior Art
The following prior art references—made of record and not relied upon—are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
WU et al. (US PGPUB 20230225576) teaches a robotic vacuum cleaner comprises: a first brush (brush roll 151) arranged to rotate about a horizontal axis (see Fig. 4, ¶ 0041) and having a first brush width along the horizontal axis (see id.); and a second brush (side brush 152) in the form of a side brush (see Fig. 4, ¶ 0041) arranged to rotate about a substantially vertical axis (see id.), the second brush comprising bristles (see Fig. 4) extending laterally outside the first brush width (see Fig. 4).
AL-MOHSSEN et al. (US PGPUB 20210096560) teaches a robotic vacuum cleaner comprises: a first brush (rotatable member 118) arranged to rotate about a horizontal axis (see Figs. 2-3A, ¶¶ 0066-67) and having a first brush width along the horizontal axis (see Figs. 2-3A); and a second brush (side brush 126) in the form of a side brush (see Figs. 3A-3B, ¶¶ 0069-71) arranged to rotate about a substantially vertical axis (see id.), the second brush comprising bristles (see Figs. 3A-3B) extending laterally outside the first brush width (see Fig. 3A).
MORIN et al. (US PGPUB 20200000302) teaches a robotic vacuum cleaner comprises: a first brush (brush roller 108A) arranged to rotate about a horizontal axis (see Figs. 2-3, ¶ 0039) and having a first brush width along the horizontal axis (see Figs. 2-3); and a second brush (brush 110) in the form of a side brush (see Figs. 2 & 8) arranged to rotate about a substantially vertical axis (see id.), the second brush comprising bristles (see id.) extending laterally outside the first brush width (see id.).
Conclusion
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 RICHARD ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3422. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 09:00-17:00 Eastern.
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, KAJ OLSEN can be reached at (571) 272-1344. 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.
/R.Z.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714