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 .
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.
Specification
The amendment filed 23 January, 2024 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
The incorporation by reference of the International Patent Application No. PCT/GB2022/051889, filed July 21, 2022, published in English on January 26, 2023, as WO 2023/002189 and of the United Kingdom Patent Application No. 2110602.6 filed on July 23, 2021 is ineffective as it was added on the date of entry into the national phase, which is after the filing date of the instant application. The filing date of this national stage application is the filing date of associated PCT, in this case *date*, see MPEP 1893.03(b). Therefore the specification amendment of 23 January, 2024 to include the incorporation by reference is new matter, per MPEP 608.01(p).
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4, 7-13, 15-19, 21, 25, and 33-38 are objected to because of the following informalities:
37 CFR 1.71(a) requires that the invention be described in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms”. Specifically, the claims include excessive use of the passive voice and the word “permit” in phrases like “so as to permit”, “configured to permit”, and “is adapted to permit”, which collectively introduce unnecessary verbosity. E.g. the limitations “wherein the motor controller permits the traction drive to be activated or de-activated” from claim 2 would be better phrased as ––wherein the motor controller is configured to activate or de-activate the traction drive––. Similarly, the phrases “configured to permit”, “configured and arranged” in claim 35 does not appear to have any different meaning from simply “configured”. Furthermore, the use of nonce terms or in conjunction with terms having known structural meaning (e.g. “base portion” or “articulated joint arrangement” instead of “base” or “articulated joint”), results in terminology that is neither clear nor concise.
Regarding claims 2-4, 7-13, 15-19, 21, 25, and 33-38, the clause in the preamble of “A machine as claimed in claim X” is inconsistent with standard US practice. Consider ––The floor treatment machine of claim X, ––.
The limitation of “work head drive means” in claim 3 is inconsistent with the claim term of “drive means” previously established in claim 1. Similarly, claim 8 uses both “guide wheel means” and “wheel means”, and claims 15-17 (and claim 1 from which they depend, use both “articulated joint arrangement” and “joint arrangement”.
The limitation of “a user interface for the motor controller is provided which interface includes” in claim 13 is grammatically improper. Consider ––a user interface for the motor controller is provided, the interface including––.
The limitation of “the guide wheels means” in claim 16 is grammatically improper. Consider ––the guide wheel means––.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 1-4, 7-13, 15-19, 21, 25, and 33-38 are 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.
The claims contain several recitations of additional structural elements in “wherein” clauses, which, in conjunction with the use of passive voice, make it unclear whether the limitations positively claim the additional elements as part of the invention or describes an intended use in which additional structure may be provided. E.g., the limitation of “wherein a motor traction drive is provided for driving the guide wheel means so as to permit self-propulsion of the machine over the floor and a motor controller is provided for controlling the operation of the motor traction drive” in claim 1 could be interpreted as “...the machine further comprising a motor traction drive configured to drive the guide wheel means... and a motor controller configured to control the operation of the motor traction drive” or as “wherein, a motor traction drive configured to drive the guide wheel means and a motor controller for controlling the operation of the motor traction drive may be provided so as to permit self-propulsion of the machine over the floor.”
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 7 recites the broad recitation “one or more wheels”, and the claim also recites “preferably a single wheel” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
The claim limitations “articulated joint arrangement” in claim 1, “linkage arrangement” in claim 24 has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the addition of the nonce term “arrangement” makes it unclear whether the otherwise definite structural terms “articulated joint” and “linkage” are intended to encompass additional subject matter beyond what one of ordinary skill would associate with the known structures for an articulated joint and a linkage. The boundaries of these claim limitations are ambiguous; therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Finally, the claims contain each of the terms “and”, “or”, and “and/or”. It is unclear whether the “or” is an exclusive or (i.e. one or the other but not both) or an inclusive or (i.e. one, the other, or both).
For these reasons, claims 1-4, 7-13, 15-19, 21, 25, and 33-38 are indefinite. For purposes of examination, the claims will be interpreted as best understood by the examiner.
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.
(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.
Claims 1-4,7-9, 12-13, 19, 33, and 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shi et al. (WO 2020192101, "Shi").
1. Shi teaches a hand guided, walk-behind floor treatment machine (Shi fig. 1 and Shi Translation [0017]) comprising:
a base portion (12) provided with and supported by at least one rotatable work head (19, Shi fig. 2 and Shi Translation [0017]) for treating the floor,
drive means (11, Shi fig. 2 and Shi Translation [0017]) for rotating the work head with respect to the base portion,
guide wheel means (6) for supporting the handle portion and/or base portion on the floor, the guide wheel means having a substantially transverse axis of rotation with respect to the base portion so as to permit machine travel over the floor in a working direction (see Shi fig. 1),
a handle portion (combination of handle linkage 3 and handle 4) for steering or guiding the machine in the working direction of travel (Shi fig. 1 and Shi Translation [0017]), a lower region of which handle portion is provided with an articulated joint arrangement (swing head 8) which permits pivoting of the handle portion with respect to the base portion during machine operation (vertical pivoting via swing head 8, see Shi figs. 3-4 and Shi Translation [0012] and [0019]), the handle portion lower region being connected to the guide wheel means or base portion so as to permit steering by manipulation of an upper region of the handle (steering by manipulating handle 4, Shi Translation [0018]),
wherein a motor traction drive is provided for driving the guide wheel means so as to permit self-propulsion of the machine over the floor (wheels 6 include hub motors, Shi Translation [0018]) and a motor controller is provided for controlling the operation of the motor traction drive (buttons 5 control hub motors, see Shi Translation [0018]).
2. Shi teaches the floor treatment machine of claim 1, wherein the motor controller permits the traction drive to be activated or de-activated (motor is activated by button 5, Shi Translation [0018]).
3. Shi teaches the floor treatment machine of claim 1, wherein the motor controller is configured to permit motor traction drive control independent of the operation of the work head drive means (button 5 controls hub motors and are started independent from motor 11, Shi Translation [0018]).
4. Shi teaches the floor treatment machine of claim 1, wherein the motor controller is configured to provide traction drive speed control (button 5 controls motor activation, i.e. controls speed between zero and full, see Shi Translation [0018]).
7. Shi teaches the floor treatment machine of claim 1, wherein the guide wheel means comprise one or more wheels (two wheels 6, Shi fig. 1).
8. She teaches the floor treatment machine of claim 1, wherein the guide wheel means has a fixed transverse axis of rotation with respect to the machine base portion (wheels rotate around an axis transverse to 23, Shi figs. 1-2), so that the base portion turns correspondingly left or right as the wheel means is yaw steered (base is capable of turning left or right as wheel means are yaw steered via differential rotation of hub motors 6, see Shi Translation [0018]).
9. Shi teaches the floor treatment machine of claim 1, wherein the guide wheel means comprises two wheels disposed side by side (two wheels 6, Shi fig. 1).
12. Shi teaches the floor treatment machine of claim 1, wherein the motor traction drive is disposed on or in the guide wheel in the form of a wheel hub drive (wheels 6 include a hub motor drive, Shi Translation [0018]).
13. Shi teaches the floor treatment machine of claim 12, wherein a user interface for the motor controller is provided which interface includes controls for operation of the motor traction drive (buttons 5 control operation of the drive), wherein the user interface is provided with user-operable controls adapted to permit user-selective on/off actuation of the motor traction drive (drive is not turned on until buttons 5 are pressed, see Shi Translation [0018]).
19. Shi teaches the floor treatment machine of claim 1, wherein in use the weight of the machine is supported partially by the guide wheel means and partially by the work head(s) (wheels and work head are capable of supporting portions of the machine, e.g., the work head at least supports its own weight).
33. Shi teaches the floor treatment machine of claim 1, wherein the base portion and associated work head or heads are provided at a front region of the machine, the guide wheel means is disposed between or aft of the work head or heads (wheels are behind work heads, see Shi fig. 1).
35. Shi teaches the floor treatment machine of claim 1 configured and arranged so that work head rotation on the floor provides substantially no net propulsive effect on the machine (Shi teaches a head rotation may be performed with the head 19 flat on the floor, see Shi fig. 3; because the frictional forces caused by head are even in a forward/backward direction, there is no propulsive effect).
36. Shi teaches the floor treatment machine of claim 1, wherein the drive means comprises one or more electric motors (11) carried by the base portion and coupled to the work head or heads (motor 11 is coupled to the work head, see Shi fig. 2).
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 15-18, 21, 25, and 37-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi as applied to claims 1 and 36 above, and further in view of Wiltshire (WO 2019207289).
15. Shi teaches the floor treatment machine of claim 1, but does not teach that the handle portion's articulated joint arrangement is adapted to permit fore/aft and side to side pivoting of the handle portion with respect to the base portion and wherein the joint arrangement also permits the transfer of steering torque applied by a user to the upper handle portion to the guide wheel means or base portion, thereby to permit yaw steering of the guide wheel means left or right.
However, Wiltshire teaches a hand guided, walk-behind floor treatment machine (10) comprising a base portion (23) provided with at least one rotatable work head (27 and 28, see Wiltshire 9:20-24), guide wheel means (18) for supporting the base portion on the floor (see Wiltshire 7:8-29), and a handle portion (12) connected to the base portion by an articulated joint arrangement (joint comprises bracket 14 and yoke 17) which permits pivoting of the handle portion with respect to the base portion (about Axis 1 and Axis 2), the joint arrangement being adapted to permit fore/aft (around Axis 1) and side to side (around axis 2) pivoting of the handle portion with respect to the base portion (see Wiltshire fig. 1) and wherein the joint arrangement also permits the transfer of steering torque applied by a user to the upper handle portion to the guide wheel means or base portion, thereby to permit yaw steering of the guide wheel means left or right (joint allows for yaw steering, Wiltshire 2:4-14).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to integrate the teachings of an articulated joint from Wiltshire into the floor treatment machine of Shi such that the handle portion's articulated joint arrangement was adapted to permit fore/aft and side to side pivoting of the handle portion with respect to the base portion and wherein the joint arrangement also permits the transfer of steering torque applied by a user to the upper handle portion to the guide wheel means or base portion, thereby to permit yaw steering of the guide wheel means left or right, as doing so represents the simple substitution of one sort of joint connecting a handle and a base portion for another, the results of such a substitution being predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
16. Shi teaches the floor treatment machine of claim 1, but does not teach that the joint arrangement comprises a cardan joint configured to act on the guide wheels means to yaw steer the guide wheel means along with the base portion to which the guide wheel means is connected.
However, Wiltshire teaches a hand guided, walk-behind floor treatment machine (10) comprising a base portion (23) provided with at least one rotatable work head (27 and 28, see Wiltshire 9:20-24), guide wheel means (18) for supporting the base portion on the floor (see Wiltshire 7:8-29), and a handle portion (12) connected to the base portion by an articulated joint arrangement (joint comprises bracket 14 and yoke 17) which permits pivoting of the handle portion with respect to the base portion (about Axis 1 and Axis 2), the joint arrangement being adapted to permit fore/aft (around Axis 1) and side to side (around axis 2) pivoting of the handle portion with respect to the base portion (see Wiltshire fig. 1) and wherein the joint arrangement comprises a U-section bracket (17) rotated 90 degrees with respect to a yoke (14) which receives a lower end of the handle portion (12, see Wiltshire fig. 1 and 7:15-30) and is capable of acting on the guide wheel means to yaw steer the guide wheel means and base portion (the joint allows for yaw steering, see Wiltshire 2:4-14). The specification as filed discloses that “[a] cardan joint may comprise a side-to-side pivot which comprises a U-section bracket rotated 90 degrees with respect to a yoke which receives a lower end of the handle portion.” Specification 5:5-7. The joint arrangement of Wiltshire contains this structure and therefore qualifies falls within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed “cardan joint”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to integrate the teachings of an articulated joint from Wiltshire into the floor treatment machine of Shi such that the joint arrangement comprised a cardan joint configured to act on the guide wheels means to yaw steer the guide wheel means along with the base portion to which the guide wheel means is connected, as doing so represents the simple substitution of one sort of joint connecting a handle and a base portion for another, the results of such a substitution being predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
17. Shi as modified teaches the floor treatment machine of claim 15, wherein a transversely oriented pivot of the joint arrangement is provided by an axle of the guide wheel means (axle 19 of guide wheel 18 is the pivot for axis 2, see Wiltshire figs. 1 and 3a-3b).
18. Shi as modified teaches the floor treatment machine of claim 17, wherein a wheel fork (17) forming a lower region of the handle portion is connected to the axle (19) to permit up/down pivoting of the handle portion along the direction of travel of the machine (axle 19 of guide wheel 18 is the pivot for up-down pivoting around axis 2, see Wiltshire figs. 1, 3a-3b, and 4a-4b).
21. Shi teaches the floor treatment machine of claim 1, wherein the machine is provided with a suction drive (vacuum motor 7, Shi fig. 1 and Shi Translation [0017]) and an associated squeegee collection apparatus (scraper head assembly 111, see Shi fig. 2 and Shi Translation [0017]) which is arranged to be trailed behind the work head (111 is behind head 19, see Shi figs. 1-2). Shi does not teach that the squeegee collection apparatus is configured to collect and store used cleaning fluid lifted from the floor in a dirty water tank.
However, Wiltshire teaches the inclusion of a squeegee collector (30) positioned behind a work head (30 is positioned behind work heads 28, see Wiltshire fig. 1 and 9:25-10:7), wherein the squeegee collector includes a suction drive and a water tank configured to collect and store used cleaning fluid (Wiltshire 9:25-10:7).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to integrate the teachings of a squeegee collector from Wiltshire into the floor treatment machine of Shi such that the squeegee collection apparatus was configured to collect and store used cleaning fluid lifted from the floor in a dirty water tank, as the inclusion of such structures is well- known in the art (Wiltshire 10:1-7).
25. Shi teaches the floor treatment machine of claim 1, but although it teaches the base portion may be moved vertically relative to the guide wheel (Shi figs. 3-4), it does not explicitly teach that this is enabled by a linkage arrangement, and consequently does not teach that the guide wheel means is coupled to the base portion by a linkage arrangement which permits vertical up/down travel of the base portion and associated work head or heads with respect to the guide wheel means.
However, Wiltshire teaches a hand guided, walk-behind floor treatment machine (10) comprising a base portion (23) provided with at least one rotatable work head (27, 28, see Wiltshire 9:20-24), guide wheel means (18) for supporting the base portion on the floor (see Wiltshire 7:8-29), wherein the guide wheel means (18) is coupled to the base portion (23) by a linkage arrangement which permits vertical up/down travel of the base portion and associated work head or heads with respect to the guide wheel means (Wiltshire 1:27-2:2 and figs. 1-2).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to integrate the teachings of a linkage arrangement from Wiltshire into the floor treatment machine of Shi such that the guide wheel means is coupled to the base portion by a linkage arrangement which permits vertical up/down travel of the base portion and associated work head or heads with respect to the guide wheel means, as doing so represents the simple substitution of one sort of joint connecting a handle and a base portion for another, the results of such a substitution being predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claims 37 and 38, Shi teaches the floor treatment machine of claim 36, but does not teach that there are two generally disc-shaped work heads disposed side-by-side and oriented to rotate about respective parallel vertical axes of rotation, or that the motor or motors are configured and/or controlled to cause the work heads to contra-rotate with respect to one another.
However, Wiltshire teaches a hand guided, walk-behind floor treatment machine (10) comprising:
two generally disc-shaped work heads and associated motors (work heads 27 and 28 are associated with motors 26 and 25, see Wiltshire 9:20-24 and fig. 1) disposed side-by-side and oriented to rotate about respective parallel vertical axes of rotation (see Wiltshire fig. 1), wherein the motor or motors are configured to contra-rotate the work heads with respect to one another (Wiltshire 9:20-23).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to integrate the teachings of dual work heads and motors from Wiltshire into the floor treatment machine of Shi such that it comprised two generally disc-shaped work heads disposed side-by-side and oriented to rotate about respective parallel vertical axes of rotation, wherein the motor or motors were configured and/or controlled to cause the work heads to contra-rotate with respect to one another, as doing so represents the simple substitution of one sort of treatment mechanism for another, the results of such a substitution being predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 1 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van der Veen (US 9757836) in view of Merz et al. (US 9949607, "Merz").
1. A hand guided, walk-behind floor treatment machine comprising:
a base portion (21) provided with and supported by at least one rotatable work head (14,15) for treating the floor,
drive means for rotating the work head with respect to the base portion (Van Der Veen 3:4-11),
guide wheel means (12) for supporting the base portion on the floor, the guide wheel means having a substantially transverse axis of rotation with respect to the base portion so as to permit machine travel over the floor in a working direction (wheels roll on a floor, which means their axis of rotation is transverse to an axis of the base portion, see Van Der Veen fig. 1),
a handle portion (associated with body 11, but not shown, see Van Der Veen 2:52-61) for steering or guiding the machine in the working direction of travel, a lower region of the handle portion being provided with an articulated joint arrangement (body 11 associated with the handle is connected to 21 via articulation point 22) which permits pivoting of the handle portion with respect to the base portion during machine operation (11 pivots relative to 21, see Van Der Veen figs. 1-6), the handle portion lower region being connected to the guide wheel means or base portion so as to permit steering by manipulation of an upper region of the handle (the handle is associated with body 11, as are wheels 12, and handle permits a user to guide or move the apparatus, See Van Der Veen fig. 1 and 2:52-61),
wherein a motor traction drive is provided for driving the guide wheel means so as to permit self-propulsion of the machine over the floor (wheels 12 are connected to a motor, see Van Der Veen 2:52-61).
Van Der Veen does not explicitly teach the presence of a motor controller for controlling the operation of the motor traction drive.
However, Merz teaches a floor treatment machine (10), including guide wheel means (14 and 16) respectively powered by motor traction drives (40 and 66, see Merz 6:26-30 and 7:14-19), and a control device (44) configured to control the operation of the motor traction drives (control device 44 controls the motor traction drives, see Merz 9:3-23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the cleaner of Van Der Veen to incorporate the teachings regarding a motor controller from Merz such that it included a motor controller for controlling the operation of the motor traction drive, as doing so represents the combination of known prior art elements according to known methods, the results of such a combination being predictable to one of ordinary skill.
9. Van der Veen as modified teaches the floor treatment machine of claim 1, wherein the guide wheel means comprises two wheels disposed side by side (two wheels 12, see Van Der Veen fig. 1).
10. Van der Veen as modified teaches the floor treatment machine of claim 9, but does not explicitly teach that the wheels are mechanically connected to one another by a differential transmission mechanism which permits rotation of one wheel at a different rate or direction with respect to the other.
However, Merz further teaches the use of a differential transmission (58) in conjunction with two wheels (50,52) disposed side-by-side and a motor traction drive (66, see Merz fig. 3 and 9:48-62).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the cleaner of Van Der Veen as modified to incorporate the additional teachings regarding a differential transmission from Merz such that the wheels were mechanically connected to one another by a differential transmission mechanism which permits rotation of one wheel at a different rate or direction with respect to the other, as doing so would improve traction on uneven surfaces and enhance maneuverability by allowing for independent rotation of the wheels when turning (Merz 9:31-62).
11. Van der Veen as modified teaches the floor treatment machine of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach that the motor traction drive comprises at least one electric motor combined with a transmission which comprises a chain, a gear train, a transmission band or a toothed drive belt or combinations thereof.
However, Merz further teaches the use of a differential transmission (58) in conjunction with two wheels (50,52) disposed side-by-side and an electric motor (66, see Merz fig. 3 and 9:48-62), wherein the differential transmission comprises a gear train (Merz 7:5-34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the cleaner of Van Der Veen as modified to incorporate the additional teachings regarding a differential transmission from Merz such that the motor traction drive comprises at least one electric motor combined with a transmission which comprises a chain, a gear train, a transmission band or a toothed drive belt or combinations thereof, as doing so would improve traction on uneven surfaces and enhance maneuverability by allowing for independent rotation of the wheels when turning (Merz 9:31-62).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN R ZAWORSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7804. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-5:00, Fridays 9:00-1:00.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at (571)-272-4475. 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.
/J.R.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights