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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 4-13 in the reply filed on 6/17/26 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 recites “comprising at least a second part” and the limitation “at least” following the transitional phrase “comprising” is redundant. The claim should read “comprising at least one [[a]] second part” or “comprising .
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 5 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “specifically designed’ and the claim nor the specification provides any clarity on what is specific about the design or what feature makes the design specific in order to perform the claimed function. The scope of what is encompassed by the limitation “specifically designed” cannot be determined and therefore the claim is indefinite. For the purpose of examination, it is interpreted the component is configured to perform the function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 4-5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang (EP 3771395).
Regarding claim 4, Jang (EP 3771395) discloses –
A floor care device configured to operate in a floor care mode and a park mode, the floor care device comprising (pars. 1 and 4 disclose a floor care operation and a docking or parked mode):
- at least one part that is susceptible to contamination when the floor care device is used in the floor care mode (particularly floor care cloth 143, best seen in fig. 2; par. 56),
- at least one light source for emitting light with a wavelength of 222nm (Fig. 1 shows sterilization unit 24, pars. 81 and 123 disclose a wavelength range of 220-280 is used), the at least one light source being arranged in such a way as to illuminate the at least one part when emitting the light (par. 81 discloses the application to the floor care cloth), and
- a floor care controller (controller, par. 129 disclosing the sterilization unit is operably coupled to the controller), operatively coupled to the at least one light source and operative to detect a transition of the floor care device to the park mode and, in response thereto, to execute a decontamination program (par. 129 discloses the detection of a docking step and the operation of the sterilizing unit 24 in response thereto), wherein
the decontamination program is configured to use the at least one light source to illuminate the at least one part for the decontamination thereof (par. 82). Jang teaches an overlapping numerical range to the claimed wavelength of 222 nm (par. 123), but is silent with regards to that specific wavelength.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Jang such that the device emits specifically 222 nm light to arrive at the claimed invention, as the claimed range overlaps with the numerical range disclosed in the art, and in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 5, Jang further teaches the at least one part comprises a user contact area, specifically designed for being contacted by a user during normal use of the floor care device (floor care cloth 143 is a part that is expected to be interacted with by a user, for example if the device must be relocated or a part replaced or repaired; furthermore, a user contacting a part of the device is a manner in which the device is intended to be used, and all parts of the device are reasonably intended to be handled at some point by a user for operation, maintenance, and regular use of the device). The cloth 143 is well capable of performing the function of being contacted by a user during normal use of the device and is reasonably expected to do so. The limitation that the part is specifically designed for this function requires no particular structure that distinguishes the claimed invention from the prior art structure, and therefore all the limitations of the claim are met. MPEP 2114, II.
Regarding claim 12, Jang further teaches the at least one part is a rotatable part (par. 11 discloses the floor cloth rotates), further comprising a rotation unit for rotating the rotatable part (first and second rotating members rotate the floor cloths), and wherein the decontamination program further comprises illuminating the rotatable part during and/or after rotating the rotatable part (pars. 11 and 85 discloses the rotating of the spin mop and floor cloths during a sterilization operation).
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang (EP 3771395) as applied to claim 4 above and further in view of O’Shaughnessy (US 2023/0018167) and Yang (US 2018/0178823).
Regarding claim 6, Jang appears to be silent with regards to a handle for holding the device.
O’Shaughnessy (US 2023/0018167) teaches a modular floor care device (abstract) including a robotic vacuum cleaner 210 (fig. 2A) that includes a handle 208 (par. 23). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Jang such that the device includes a handle for holding the floor care device during use in the floor care mode as taught by O’Shaughnessy. One would have been motivated to do so to allow for convenient and versatile cleaning operations in both autonomous and manual cleaning to arrive at an improved device. O’Shaughnessy appears to be silent with regards to the handle being decontaminated with light in a parked mode.
Yang (US 2018/0178823) teaches a cart 200 with a handle 108 for moving the cart (abstract, Fig. 2) that is operated in the same manner as a handle on a floor care device and would similarly be desirable for self-sanitization, where the handle is decontaminated by light in a parked position (Fig. 3 shows the operation of sterilizing light in the parked position). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Jang such that the handle is decontaminated in a parked position as taught by Yang to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so in order to decontaminate a high-touch surface and reduce the transmission of disease to arrive at an improved self-decontaminating floor care device.
Regarding claim 13, modified Jang further teaches a contamination detector for detecting contamination on a contaminated portion of the at least one part and wherein the decontamination program comprises selectively illuminating the contaminated portion (par. 27 of Yang teaches a cleanliness sensor configured to detect a cleanliness level of the handle to control the decontamination operation thereof, and the inclusion of this feature would have been nothing more than obvious to better decontaminate the surfaces as needed).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang (EP 3771395) as applied to claim 4 above and further in view of Lamon (US 2020/0077860) and Kuzelka (US 2022/0134128).
Regarding claim 7, Jang appears to be silent with regards to a button, knob, lever, or touch screen.
Lamon (US 2020/0077860) teaches a floor care device with a touch screen thereon for control thereof (pars. 61 and 69; touch screen as input device 7, Figs. 1-2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Jang such that the floor care device includes a touch screen as taught by Lamon. One would have been motivated to do so to conveniently and easily program the operation of the device to arrive at an improved device. Lamon appears to be silent with regards to the touch screen being decontaminated.
Kuzelka (US 2022/0134128) teaches a self-sterilizing touch screen device (title, abstract) where a UV light system sterilizes a touch screen of a device (Figs. 1-2 LED engines 152 for emitting UV radiation; pars. 35, 40). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Jang such that the touch screen is decontaminated by UV light as taught by Kuzelka to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to prevent transmission of infectious disease by contact with a high-touch surface such as a touch screen to arrive at an improved device.
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang (EP 3771395) in view of Helsel (US 2006/0278088).
Regarding claim 8, Jang appears to be silent with regards to the part being an air filter, a dust bin, or a shroud.
Helsel (US 2006/0278088) teaches a floor care device (title, abstract; Fig. 5 vacuum cleaner 20) that includes a UV source for irradiating an air filter and dust bin for decontamination thereof (Fig. 5 UV sources 29 apply UV light to dust bag 23 and filter 26; par. 59). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Jang such that the device includes at least one UV light source for decontaminating the a filter and dust bin of the dusting housing 2100 of Jang (see par. 174) to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to further decontaminate the cleaning components of the treatment device to further reduce the accumulation of pathogens on and in the robot to arrive at a more sanitary floor treatment device.
Regarding claim 9, Jang appears to be silent with regards to at least one second part where the at least one part guides light towards the at least one second part.
Helsel (US 2006/0278088) teaches a floor care device (title, abstract; Fig. 5 vacuum cleaner 20) that includes a UV source for irradiating an air filter and dust bin for decontamination thereof (Fig. 5 UV sources 29 apply UV light to dust bag 23 and filter 26; par. 59), such that the dust bin 23 is a first part that is between the UV light 29 and filter 26 and such that light directed from source 29 would follow along the bag 23 in a direction towards the secondary filter means 26 as claimed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Jang such that the device includes at least one UV light source for decontaminating the a filter and dust bin of the dusting housing 2100 of Jang (see par. 174) such that the dust bin guides lights towards the filter means to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to further decontaminate the cleaning components of the treatment device to further reduce the accumulation of pathogens on and in the robot to arrive at a more sanitary floor treatment device.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, modified Jang further teaches the at least one part is a dust bin (Fig. 5 dust bin 23, see the rejection of claim 9 above), and the second part is an air filter (Fig. 5 secondary filter means 26, see the rejection of claim 9 above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDAN A HENSEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6615. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:30 - 7pm;.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/BRENDAN A HENSEL/ Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights