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 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 – 12 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/07/2024 and 10/30/2025 were filed before the first office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: at least one part in claims 1 and 7. A review of the specification has identified the at least one part as a brush bar, 110 as shown in Fig. 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3 – 7 and 10 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jang et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0031244 A1).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Jang teaches a docking station (docking apparatus, 2) for a floor care device (mobile robot, 1), the floor care device (1) comprising at least one part (mop module, 14) that is susceptible to contamination when the floor care device is used in a floor care mode (Paragraph [0065]), the docking station (2) comprising: a docking bay (plate, 22) for receiving and holding at least an element (caster) of the floor care device (Paragraphs [0068] and [0070]), a docking sensor for providing a docking signal when at least the element of the floor care device is held in the docking bay (Paragraph [0034]), at least one light source (sterilization unit, 24) for emitting light (via the germicidal lamp, 241) with a wavelength of 222nm (Paragraph [0125]), the at least one light source being arranged in such a way as to illuminate the at least one part of the floor care device by emitting the light while the floor care device is being held in the docking bay (Paragraphs [0096] – [0104]), and a docking station controller (Paragraph [0137]), operatively coupled to the docking sensor and the at least one light source and operative to receive the docking signal and to execute (Paragraph [0137]), in response thereto, a decontamination program (Paragraph [0034]), wherein the decontamination program is configured to use the at least one light source to illuminate the at least one part of the floor care device for the decontamination thereof (Paragraphs [0034] and [0096] – [0104]).
Regarding Claim 3, Jang teaches a docking station (docking apparatus, 2) further comprising a communication unit (electrically connected terminals; Paragraph [0005]), operatively coupled to the docking station controller (Paragraph [0034]), for enabling communication between the docking station controller and a floor care controller of the floor care device (Paragraph [0034]).
Regarding Claim 4, Jang teaches the docking (docking apparatus, 2) further comprising the decontamination program (Paragraph [0034]) comprising receiving, from the floor care controller, decontamination signal indicating a contaminated portion of the at least one part (Paragraph [0034]), and in response to the contamination signal selectively illuminating the contaminated portion (Paragraphs [0096] – [0104]).
Regarding Claim 5, Jang teaches the docking (docking apparatus, 2), the decontamination program comprising sending, to the floor care controller, an instruction to rotate the at least one part, and illuminating the at least one part during and/or after rotating the at least one part (Paragraph [0034]).
Regarding Independent Claim 6, Jang teaches an apparatus (Fig. 1) comprising a combination of a docking station docking station (docking apparatus, 2) and a floor care device (mobile robot, 1), wherein the floor care device (1) comprises at least one part (mop module, 14) that is susceptible to contamination when the floor care device is used in a floor care mode (Paragraph [0065]), the docking station (2) comprising: a docking bay (plate, 22) for receiving and holding at least an element (caster) of the floor care device (Paragraphs [0068] and [0070]), a docking sensor for providing a docking signal when at least the element of the floor care device is held in the docking bay (Paragraph [0034]), at least one light source (sterilization unit, 24) for emitting light (via the germicidal lamp, 241) with a wavelength of 222nm (Paragraph [0125]), the at least one light source being arranged in such a way as to illuminate the at least one part of the floor care device by emitting the light while the floor care device is being held in the docking bay (Paragraphs [0096] – [0104]), and a docking station controller (Paragraph [0137]), operatively coupled to the docking sensor and the at least one light source (Paragraph [0137]) and operative to receive the docking signal and to execute (Paragraph [0137]), in response thereto, a decontamination program, wherein the decontamination program is configured to use the at least one light source to illuminate the at least one part of the floor care device for the decontamination thereof (Paragraphs [0034] and [0096] – [0104]).
Regarding Independent Claim 7, Jang teaches an apparatus (Fig. 1) comprising a combination of a docking station docking station (docking apparatus, 2) and a floor care device (mobile robot, 1), wherein the floor care device (1) comprises at least one part (mop module, 14) that is susceptible to contamination when the floor care device is used in a floor care mode (Paragraph [0065]), and at least a second part that is susceptible to contamination when the floor care device is used in the floor care mode, the docking station (2) comprising: a docking bay (plate, 22) for receiving and holding at least an element (caster) of the floor care device (Paragraphs [0068] and [0070]), a docking sensor for providing a docking signal when at least the element of the floor care device is held in the docking bay (Paragraph [0034]), at least one light source (sterilization unit, 24) for emitting light (via the germicidal lamp, 241) with a wavelength of 222nm (Paragraph [0125]), the at least one light source being arranged in such a way as to illuminate the at least one part of the floor care device by emitting the light while the floor care device is being held in the docking bay (Paragraphs [0096] – [0104]), and a docking station controller (Paragraph [0137]), operatively coupled to the docking sensor and the at least one light source (Paragraph [0137]) and operative to receive the docking signal and to execute (Paragraph [0137]), in response thereto, a decontamination program, wherein the decontamination program is configured to use the at least one light source to illuminate the at least one part of the floor care device for the decontamination thereof (Paragraphs [0034] and [0096] – [0104]); wherein, when the floor care device (1) is received in and held by the docking bay (22), the at least one part (14) is situated between the at least one light source (241) and the second part (water tank, 81) and configured to guide the light emitted by the light source (241) towards the second part (81; Figs. 5 and 7 – the light source, 241 guides lite in the direction of the second part, 81).
Regarding Claim 10, Jang teaches the apparatus (Fig. 1) wherein the wherein the floor care device (1) further comprises a floor care controller (Paragraph [0034]), and wherein the docking station (2) and the floor care device (1) each comprise a communication unit (electrically connected terminals; Paragraph [0005]), operatively coupled to their respective controllers for enabling communication between the docking station controller and a floor care controller of the floor care device (Paragraph [0034]).
Regarding Claim 11, Jang teaches the apparatus (Fig. 1), the decontamination program (Paragraph [0034]) comprising the docking station controller receiving, from the floor care controller, a contamination signal indicating a contaminated portion of the at least one part (Paragraph [0034]), and in response to the contamination signal selectively illuminating the contaminated portion (Paragraphs [0096] – [0104]).
Regarding Claim 12, Jang teaches the apparatus (Fig. 1) wherein the at least one part (14) is comprises a rotatable part (Paragraph [0036]), and wherein the decontamination program comprises the docking station controller (Paragraph [0034]) sending, to the floor care controller, an instruction to rotate the rotatable part, and illuminating the rotatable part during and/or after rotating the rotatable part (Paragraphs [0105] and [0140]).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0031244 A1) in view of Ram (KR 2015/0006526 A) as cited by Applicant – see attached machine translation.
Regarding Claim 2, Jang teaches the docking station of claim 1 as discussed above.
Jang does not explicitly teach the docking station further comprising a contamination detector for detecting contamination on a contaminated portion of the at least one part of the floor care device and wherein the decontamination program comprises selectively illuminating the contaminated portion.
Ram, however, teaches the docking station further comprising a contamination detector (moisture detection unit; Paragraph [0017]) for detecting contamination (excess moisture) on a contaminated portion of the at least one part of the floor care device and wherein the decontamination program comprises selectively illuminating the contaminated portion (Paragraph [0060]).
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 station of Jang to further include a contamination detector for detecting contamination on a contaminated portion of the at least one part of the floor care device and wherein the decontamination program comprises selectively illuminating the contaminated portion, as taught by Jang, to provide a system that effectively targets a specific contaminated areas, thus saving time in the sterilization process.
Claims 8 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0031244 A1) in view of Ram (KR 2015/0006526 A) as cited by Applicant.
Regarding Claim 8, Jang teaches the apparatus of claim 8 as discussed above.
Jang further teaches a water bin, 81 but does not explicitly teach the apparatus wherein the at least one part is comprises a dust bin.
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 apparatus of claim 1 to further include the at least one part is comprises a dust bin, as claimed, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known component on the basis of its suitability for the intended use (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding Claim 9, Jang teaches the apparatus of claim 8 as discussed above.
Jang does not explicitly teach the apparatus the second part is comprises an air filter, or a shroud for at least partially enclosing the dust bin.
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 apparatus of claim 1 to further include the second part is comprises an air filter, or a shroud for at least partially enclosing the dust bin, as claimed, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known component on the basis of its suitability for the intended use (MPEP 2144.07).
Conclusion
Art made of record, however, not relied upon for the current rejection is as follows: CN 115969280 A to Jian teaches a control method, cleaning equipment and a base station. The control method comprises the steps that a rolling brush of the cleaning equipment is sterilized; in the degerming process, the rolling brush is controlled to rotate once at a preset time interval, and the rotation angle is preset for one time. The cleaning device includes: a device body; the rolling brush is arranged in the equipment body; the triggering part is arranged in the equipment body and is used for being in contact with or sensing a first detection module on a base station to generate triggering information; wherein the trigger information is used for triggering a sterilization module on the base station to operate; and the second control module is used for controlling the rolling brush to rotate for one time at a preset time interval in the sterilization process of the rolling brush, and the rotation angle is preset for one time of rotation. According to the technical scheme provided by the embodiment of the invention, automatic sterilization of the rolling brush of the cleaning equipment is realized (Abstract).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATINA N HENSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8024. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday; 5:30am to 3:30pm.
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.
/KATINA N. HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723