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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “tubes” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 limitations is/are:
Claim 2: “the at least one obstacle overcoming element is configured to guide a respective pull chamber along the normal direction, during a vaulting of an obstacle”
Claim 20: “a mobility unit, configured to move the mobile service device”
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 Objections
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the one or more second pull chambers” should be an is interpreted as “a[[the]] one or more second pull chambers” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 11, the phrase “wherein the chassis” renders the claim indefinite because it lacks clear antecedent basis. Although claim 11 introduces the term “a body” is unclear if “the chassis” is referring back to the previously introduced “body” or if “the chassis” is intended to be a separate structure. Further, it is noted that claim 10 introduces “a chassis” but claim 11 depends from 9, not from claim 10. For the sake of compact prosecution the terms “body” and “chassis” are interpreted as being interchangeable terms.
Further regarding claim 11, the phrase “in order to allow independent movement thereof with respect to the normal direction” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what “thereof” is referring back to, e.g., the spring or the pull chamber or another structure? For the sake of compact prosecution either the spring or pull chamber are interpreted as satisfying the limitation.
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 (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 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)(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.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2019/0329830 A1 to Sekiguchi et al (hereinafter Sekiguchi).
Regarding claim 22, Sekiguchi discloses a method of servicing a surface by a mobile service device, the method comprising:
adhering the mobile service device (10) to a panel (WS) of a first service surface, via at least two pull chambers of the mobile service device (Fig. 5A & [0052]);
moving the mobile service device (10) on the panel until reaching an obstacle (corner between WS and CS), separating the first service surface (WS) from a second service surface (CS); detaching a first pull chamber (20a of 12A) from the first service surface (Figs. 5A-5B & [0034] and [0053]-[0054]);
moving the mobile service device (10) until the first pull chamber (20a of 12A) reaches the second service surface (CS); adhering the first pull chamber (20a of 12A) to the second service surface (CS) (5B-5D & [0055]-[0058]);
moving the mobile service device (10) until the one or more second pull chambers (20a of 12B) reach the second service surface; and adhering the one or more second pull chambers (20a of 12B) to the second service surface (WS) (5D-5E & [0060]-[0061], [0063]-[0065]-[0066]).
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 1-5, 8-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sekiguchi in view of US 2020/0129017 A1 Robert et al (hereinafter Robert).
Regarding claim 1, Sekiguchi discloses a mobile … device (10) … (Fig. 1 & Abstract), comprising:
at least two movable pull chambers (20a) spaced apart from each other (Fig. 3 & [0034]-[0037] disclose a negative pressure room in each of the first and second travel units is created in the space 20a and the pressure room is considered movable because the vehicle travels via the caterpillar units), and
at least one obstacle overcoming element (20) connected to each movable pull chamber (20a) (Fig. 3 & [0035] discloses the cushion is made of an elastic material and thus is interpreted as being able to overcome obstacle. Additionally, Figs. 5A-5E depict the entire device overcoming an obstacle, a surface change from wall to ceiling, and the cushion is used to make this transition and thus is further considered as overcoming an obstacle. See [0051]-[0067] for a detailed discussion of this process.).
Sekiguchi does not appear to disclose that the mobile device is a mobile service device for servicing surfaces; wherein the movable pull chambers are capable of moving in a direction normal to a service surface.
Robert teaches that it was old and well known in the art of vacuum robots, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for a mobile device to be a mobile service device for servicing surfaces (Fig. 1 & [0094]-[0095]); the movable pull chambers (36) to be capable of moving in a direction normal to a service surface (Figs. 1,2, 4A-4E & [0096]-[0097]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vacuum robots before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pull chamber system disclosed by Sekiguchi to incorporate for the mobile device to be a mobile service device for servicing surfaces the movable pull chambers to be capable of moving in a direction normal to a service surface as taught by Robert in order to allow enable cleaning of hard to reach surfaces by humans and for the pull chambers to avoid obstacles, e.g., see Robert [0094]-[0095] and [0116]-[0122], and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 2, depending on claim 1, Sekiguchi further discloses wherein the at least one obstacle overcoming element (20) is configured to guide a respective pull chamber (20a) along the normal direction, during a vaulting of an obstacle (As discussed above, this element is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as a rim with a sloped edge from the service surface that would engage with a presented obstacle and direct the attached pull chamber over the obstacle to accomplish the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Sekiguchi - Fig. 3 depicts the elastic cushion 20 also has a sloped leading edge and is interpreted as being configured to guide the attached pull chamber 20a over any presented obstacle.).
Regarding claim 3, depending on claim 1, Sekiguchi further discloses at least one vacuum pump (16) in fluid connection to the at least two pull chambers (20a), wherein the at least one vacuum pump (16) is configured to pull the mobile service device towards the service surface (Fig. 3 & [0034]-[0035]).
Regarding claim 4, depending on claim 3, Sekiguchi further discloses wherein the at least one vacuum pump (16) is configured to induce a negative pressure on the service surface via the pull chambers (20a), in order to pull the mobile service device (10) towards the service surface (Fig. 3 & [0034]-[0035]).
Regarding claim 5, depending on claim 1, Sekiguchi further discloses wherein each obstacle overcoming element (20) (Fig. 3) comprises:
a rim (20), circumferentially located around an edge of the respective pull chamber (20a) (Fig. 3 & [0034]-[0035]).
Regarding claim 8, depending claim 5, Sekiguchi further discloses wherein the rim (20) further comprises a sloped edge located at a front of the rim (20), wherein the sloped edge is set at a positive angle with respect to a motion direction of the mobile service device (10) (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 9, depending on claim 8, the modified combination of Sekiguchi/Robert further discloses wherein each rim (Sekiguchi – 20/Robert - 32a) is connected to a spring (Robert - 50), configured to direct the rim (Sekiguchi – 20/Robert - 32a) toward the service surface (Sekiguchi – WS or CS/Robert - 18) (Sekiguchi – Fig. 3 & [0034]-[0035]. Robert – Figs. 1 and 4A-E & [0097]).
Regarding claim 10, depending on claim 9, the modified combination of Sekiguchi/ Robert does not appear to disclose wherein the spring (Robert - 50) is connected to a lower surface of a chassis (Sekiguchi - 14/Robert – 12) of the service device (Sekiguchi - 10/Robert – 10) (Sekiguchi – Fig. 3/Robert – Fig. 1).
However, the rearrangement of parts from one arrangement into another arrangement is considered be an obvious matter of design choice to a persona of ordinary skill in the art when operation of the device would not be modified. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). In the instant case, securing the spring of Robert to the lower surface of the chassis of Sekiguchi when modifying Sekiguchi to incorporate the teachings of raising and lowering each pull chamber would not modify the operation of the resulting device. In fact, a benefit achieved by doing so is less machining would be required to the chassis of the device because less apertures through the chassis would be required than that disclosed/depicted in Robert.
Regarding claim 11, depending on claim 9, the modified combination of Sekiguchi/ Robert further discloses wherein the spring (Robert - 50) is connected to a body (Sekiguchi - 14/Robert – 12) of the service device (Sekiguchi - 10/Robert – 10), wherein the chassis (Robert – 12) comprises an opening for each pull chamber (Sekiguchi – 20a/Robert – 36), in order to allow independent movement thereof with respect to the normal direction (Sekiguchi – Fig. 3/Robert – Figs. 1 and 4A-E).
Regarding claim 12, depending on claim 1, Sekiguchi further discloses at least one sensor configured to detect at least one of: a gap between panels of a service surface, an orientation of the mobile service device, an orientation of the pull chambers ([0058] discloses using sensors to perform a variety of tasks including determining positioning to the ceiling surface and determining suctioning status on a surface, which can be considered detecting orientation).
Regarding claim 14, depending on claim 1, the modified combination of Sekiguchi/Robert further discloses a controller (Robert – 21), configured to perform at least one of: actuating a pull force of the pull chambers, and controlling at least one vacuum pump in fluid connection to the pull chambers (Abstract and [0044]).
It would have been obvious to have modified Sekiguchi in view of the teachings of Robert for at least the same reasons discussed above in claim 1 and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 15, depending on claim 9, the modified combination of Sekiguchi/Robert further discloses wherein the each of the at least two pull chambers (Sekiguchi – 20a/Robert – 36) (Sekiguchi – Fig. 3/Robert – Figs. 1 and 4A-E) comprises:
a first state, comprising a first predefined distance from the serviced surface; and
a second state, comprising a second predefined distance from the serviced surface (Robert – Figs. 4A-E depicts raised and lowered states, i.e., at the surface =0 distance and above the surface > 0 distance, for the first and second chamber. Examiner notes that based on the disclosure of Figs. 4A-E the first state for each chamber could be considered either 0 or >0).
It would have been obvious to have modified Sekiguchi in view of the teachings of Robert for at least the same reasons discussed above in claim 1 and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 16, depending on claim 15, the modified combination of Sekiguchi/Robert further discloses wherein actuating between the first and second states is achieved by at least one of: actuating one or more actuators (Roberts - 38) configured to actuate the one or more springs (Roberts - 50) (Roberts 4A-E & [0097]), and inducing a negative pressure on the surface via the pull chambers.
It would have been obvious to have modified Sekiguchi in view of the teachings of Robert for at least the same reasons discussed above in claim 1 and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 17, depending on claim 15, the modified combination of Sekiguchi/Robert further discloses wherein the first predefined distance is greater than zero, and the second predefined distance is equal to zero (See above rejection of claim 15, particularly Roberts 4A-E).
It would have been obvious to have modified Sekiguchi in view of the teachings of Robert for at least the same reasons discussed above in claim 1 and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 17, depending on claim 15, the modified combination of Sekiguchi/Robert further discloses wherein the first predefined distance is equal to zero, and the second predefined distance is greater than zero (See above rejection of claim 15, particularly Roberts 4A-E).
It would have been obvious to have modified Sekiguchi in view of the teachings of Robert for at least the same reasons discussed above in claim 1 and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 19, depending on claim 1, the modified combination of Sekiguchi/Robert further discloses a service unit (Robert - 28) (Robert – Fig. 1 & [0094]-[0095]).
It would have been obvious to have modified Sekiguchi in view of the teachings of Robert for at least the same reasons discussed above in claim 1 and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 20, depending on claim 19, Sekiguchi further discloses a mobility unit (18), configured to move the mobile service device (10) (Fig. 1 & [0037]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sekiguchi in view of Roberts and further in view of US 2007/0235238 A1 to Sadegh et al (hereinafter Sadegh).
Regarding claim 6, depending claim 5, the modified combination of Sekiguchi/Roberts does not appear to further disclose wherein each rim comprises a tube, configured to change a physical property of the rim.
Sadegh teaches that it was old and well known in the art of vacuum robots, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for a rim (50) comprises a tube, configured to change a physical property of the rim (Fig. 4 & [0039]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vacuum robots before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cushion disclosed by the modified combination of Sekiguchi/Roberts to incorporate the for the rim to be a tube configured to change a physical property of the rim as taught by Sadegh in order to adjust for a variety of terrain, e.g., see Sadegh [0039], and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sekiguchi in view of Roberts and further in view of Sadegh and further in view of US 2017/0015156 A1 to McClellan.
Regarding claim 7, depending on claim 6, although the modified combination of Sekiguchi/Robert/Sadegh discloses that the tube is configured to have a pressure characteristic changed, e.g., see Sadegh [0039], there is not explicit teaching that at least one inflation pump is in fluid connection to the one or more tubes, wherein the at least one inflation pump is configured to change a pressure characteristic of the one or more tubes.
McClellan teaches that it was old and well known in the art of tubes and adjustment of their pressure characteristics based on terrain, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for at least one inflation pump (102,104) to be in fluid connection to the one or more tubes (100), wherein the at least one inflation pump (102,104) is configured to change a pressure characteristic of the one or more tubes (100) (Fig. 1 & [0056] and [0071]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of tubes and adjustment of their pressure characteristics based on terrain before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tube of the vacuum robot disclosed by the modified combination of Sekiguchi/Robert/Sadegh to incorporate for the at least one inflation pump is in fluid connection to the one or more tubes, wherein the at least one inflation pump is configured to change a pressure characteristic of the one or more tubes as taught by McClellan in order to adjust the pressure of the tire based on the terrain or current pressure of the tube, e.g., see McClellan [0071] or [0075], and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Conclusion
See the 892 for prior art made of record and not relied upon that is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER B WEHRLY whose telephone number is (303)297-4433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 - 4:30 MT.
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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at (571) 272-6265. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER B WEHRLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611