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 .
Claims 10-15 and 21 are pending
Claims 1-9 and 16-20 are withdrawn
Claims 10-12 and 14 have been amended
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10-20-25 has been entered.
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 21 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 21 recites the limitation "the non-contact sensor" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 10-15 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 10 recite(s) “utilizing the measured length, speed, or cleanliness modifies operating parameters of the movable surface cleaning system”, this could be mental steps including judgment steps. The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) section Ill). The limitations of “modifies” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “computing device” language, “modifies” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally judging how dirty the movable surface is and deciding how to alter the cleaning process based on the length speed or cleanliness of the movable surface.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a particular practical application because once the judgment and/or decision is made it is used to make an undefined modification to an operating parameter including (i), (ii) or (iii) recited in claim 10 based on the mental step(s), which amounts to “applying” the abstract idea generally without integrating it into a particular practical application. The courts have identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a particular practical application: Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.04 (d) I. Affecting an operating parameter in an undefined general way is equivalent to merely applying the “judicial exception” and therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a particular practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites a cleaning head and computing device in a movable surface cleaning system, which are well understood, routine and conventional in cleaning movable surfaces. Claim 10 is therefore not patent eligible.
The remaining claims 11-15 and 21 further modify the abstract ideas discussed above and/or recite well understood, routine and conventional features in the art of cleaning movable surfaces and therefore are not patent eligible for the same reasons above.
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.
Claim(s) 10-11 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Handy US2019/0084773 (US’773) in view of Cristini US 2020/0179989 (US’989).
Regarding claim 10, US’773 teaches a movable surface cleaning system (abstract, a moving item may be treated using a treatment member), comprising: a cleaning head mounted to a frame (cleaning head 42, para. 30-31, fig. 7);
a computing device operatively connected to the cleaning head (memory and software in control panel 38, para 33-35), the computing device having a user interface (UI) (control panel 38, para. 33-35, fig. 7), one or more processors, and one or more hardware- based memory devices storing instructions (memory and software in control panel 38, para 33-35) which, when executed by the one or more processors, causes the computing device to: present, on the UI, controls to set a near and extended position for the cleaning head controllable by the movable surface cleaning system (the control panel is used to move the cleaning head to one end of the belt, note the position in software and move the cleaning head to the other side of the belt and note this position in software);
present, on the UI, options to set a cleaning level of the movable surface, in which the cleaning level pertains to a level of intensity exerted against the movable surface by the cleaning head (The debris level and hence maximum transverse speed of movement of the cleaning head 42 to provide thorough cleaning is determined and entered using the control panel, para. 35-38. The phrase “level of intensity exerted against the movable surface” can include any factor of the cleaning process including cleaning time, for example a slow speed of the cleaning head means the cleaning head cleans a particular area for longer and therefore can be considered a higher intensity clean);
present, on the UI, a method by which the computing device measures a length or speed of the movable surface; and wherein the measuring is performed by a sensor in communication with the computing device (apparatus 30 includes belt speed measurement arrangement 48, which in combination with the control panel can be used to determine the cycle time and speed of the belt, para. 30-38);
utilize the movable surface’s measured length, speed during operation, in which utilizing the measured length, speed, modifies an operating parameter of the movable surface cleaning system, the operating parameter including (i) a number of zones of the movable surface that the cleaning head cleans (the length and speed of the belt and time for a single complete pass of the whole belt are used by the apparatus to automatically pick a program for cleaning of the belt within a minimum possible time. The apparatus will choose the number of transverse strips, which read on zones, of the belt which require to be cleaned bearing in mind the width of the belt and the maximum speed of movement of the cleaning head subject to the debris level which has been input. Once the apparatus has decided how many strips the belt is to be cleaned in then the optimum speed of transverse movement of the cleaning head will be chosen to provide complete coverage of the belt substantially without overlap, as illustrated in FIGS. 8-10, para. 30-38).
US’773 does not teach that the computing device initiate operation of the movable surface cleaning system which includes measuring one or more of the length, speed, or cleanliness of the movable surface, and wherein the measuring is performed by multiple sensors in communication with the computing device, utilize the movable surfaces cleanliness during operation in which utilizing modifieds another operating parameter, the modified operating parameters including (ii) a rotational movement of the cleaning head, and (iii) alter the cleaning head’s location on the movable surface based on the measured -cleanliness of the movable surface.
However, US’773 teaches that the length and speed are calculated based on the speed measurement apparatus (para. 30-38). Therefore, providing an automatic means to replace the user-initiated operation of operating the speed measurement apparatus to calculate the length and speed of the movable surface would be broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of US’773 to include the computing device initiate operation of the movable surface cleaning system which includes measuring one or more of the length, speed of the movable surface because US’773 teaches that the length and speed are calculated based on the speed measurement apparatus and the court has held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, see MPEP2144.04 III.
The modified system of US’773 does not teach wherein the measuring is performed by multiple sensors in communication with the computing device, utilize the movable surfaces cleanliness during operation in which utilizing modifieds another operating parameter, the modified operating parameters including (ii) a rotational movement of the cleaning head, and (iii) alter the cleaning head’s location on the movable surface based on the measured -cleanliness of the movable surface.
US’989 teaches a cleaning system for cleaning a band circulating in a paper making machine; the system comprising: at least one detecting device configured to detect at least one parameter indicative of the cleaning condition (abstract). The system 1 comprises at least a detecting device 4, configured to detect at least one parameter indicative of the cleaning conditions of the band 2 on at least one portion of the band. In particular, the control device 6 is configured to identify the dirty areas of the band 2, for example by identifying the areas of the band 2 in which the permeability value is lower than a threshold value. the control device 6 regulates the moving assembly 8 so that the cleaning device 5 is positioned and is activated in the dirty areas Z1, Z2 of the band 2 identified by the control device 6 (para. 29, 80-96, see fig. 1-2). Therefore, US’989 teaches using a detection device in communication with a computing device that detects the location of dirty area of a moving belt and modifies a cleaning operation including alter the cleaning head’s location on the movable surface based on the measured-cleanliness of the movable surface and a number of zones of the movable surface that the cleaning head cleans. US’989 discusses utilizing the detection device to avoid excessive cleaning of the band, in the long term, which can cause wear on the band, compromising its life and above all, the absence of washing control entails obvious waste in terms of energy and water (para. 8). Combining the teachings of US’989 with the system of US’773 would add the additional sensor of US’989 to the system of US’773 and utilize it for additional cleaning operations as taught by US’989.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified system of US’773 to include wherein the measuring is performed by multiple sensors in communication with the computing device, utilize the movable surfaces cleanliness during operation in which utilizing modifieds another operating parameter, the modified operating parameters including and (iii) alter the cleaning head’s location on the movable surface based on the measured -cleanliness of the movable surface and a number of zones of the movable surface that the cleaning head cleans because US’989 teaches utilizing a detection device to avoid excessive cleaning of the band, in the long term, which can cause wear on the band, compromising its life and above all, the absence of washing control entails obvious waste in terms of energy and water and combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious, see MPEP 2141 III (A).
Regarding claim 11, the modified system of US’773 teaches the movable surface cleaning system of claim 10. US’989 further teaches that at least one of the multiple sensors that measures the movable surface’s length, speed, or cleanliness is non-contact with the movable surface (see fig. 1-2, detecting device 4).
Regarding claim 21, the modified system of US’773 teaches the movable surface cleaning system of claim 10. US’989 further teaches the measured cleanliness includes identifying a dirtied location on the movable surface using the non-contact sensor, transmitting the identified dirtied location to the one or more processors associated with the computing device, and the altering of the cleaning head’s location on the movable surface includes maneuvering the cleaning head toward the dirtied location (as discussed above with regard to claims 10 and 11, US’989 teaches that the detecting device 4 is used to detect the dirty areas and uses the area locations to control the cleaning device to move to those locations and perform cleaning).
Claim(s) 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US’773 in view of US’989 as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Kudo et al. US 2014/0044460 (US’460).
Regarding claim 12, US’773 teaches the movable surface cleaning system of claim 11.
US’773 does not teach wherein the non-contact sensor detects and identifies identifiable marker on the movable surface.
US’460 teaches using cameras to measure the speed of a transfer belt including spots called a speckle which acts as a virtual mark on the belt used to measure the speed (para. 26-33). The cameras make it possible to improve the detection accuracy of surface speed of a transfer belt in an image forming apparatus and achieve the high-accuracy belt conveyance control (para. 75)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of US’773 to include wherein the non-contact sensor detects and identifies identifiable marker on the movable surface because US’460 teaches it can achieve high-accuracy belt conveyance control and use of known technique to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious, see MPEP 2141 III (C).
Regarding claims 13 and 15, the modified system of US’773 teaches the movable surface cleaning system of claim 12. US’460 further teaches the non-contact sensor includes a camera (para. 44, fig. 1) which reads on wherein the non- contact sensor is a vision sensor, with regard to claim 13 and wherein the non- contact sensor is a camera, with regard to claim 15.
Regarding claim 14, the modified system of US’773 teaches the movable surface cleaning system of claim 12.
The modified system of US’773 does not teach the non- contact sensor determines a complete revolution of the movable surface using the identifiable marker.
However, US’773 further teaches the cycle time, i.e. time for the belt 12 to complete one whole longitudinal pass is entered. The length of the belt 12 is entered, or can be calculated knowing the speed and time for a single complete pass of the whole belt 12 (para. 38). The method comprising inputting the width of the moving item; inputting the maximum speed of movement of the treatment member across the movable item to provide a required level of treatment; inputting the speed of movement of the moving item; inputting the length of the moving item; and automatically calculating the extent of movement of the treatment member across the moving item in each reciprocal movement of the treatment member, and calculating the required speed of movement of the treatment member across the moving item, to provide a required level of treatment across the whole of the moving item (para. 5). Therefore, it would be obvious to modify the modified movable surface cleaning system of US’773 to use the non-contact sensor to detect the cycle time so that the length of the belt can be used to calculate the required speed of movement of the treatment member across the moving item, to provide the required level of treatment across the whole of the moving item.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modify system of US’773 to include the non- contact sensor detects a complete revolution of the movable surface using the identifiable marker because US’773 the length of the belt can be used to calculate the required speed of movement of the treatment member across the moving item, to provide the required level of treatment across the whole of the moving item and use of known technique to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious, see MPEP 2141 III (C).
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to independent claim 10 to include additional subject matter regarding the utilizing and initiating steps has changed the scope of claim 10, and as a result, the 103 rejection of claim 10 as stated in the final office action mailed 7-14-25 is withdrawn. Upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 103 as obvious over US’773 in view of US989 which includes both the rejection of claim 10 as stated in the final office action and additional discussion regarding the teachings of US’989 relating to the features added to claim 10.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10-20-25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant' s arguments, see pages 8-9, filed 10-20-25, with respect to the rejection of claim 10, with regard to amendments made to claim 10 and the teachings of Handy have been fully considered but are moot, due to the new rejection applied in the above final office action not relying on Handy for teaching the additional features added to claim 10.
In response to applicants’ arguments that measuring of the length, speed or cleanliness cannot be performed in the mind, as discussed above, the process of measuring does not read on an abstract idea, the modification of a cleaning process based on these measurements reads on an abstract idea. modifying a known process generally, amounts to just “applying” the abstract idea and does not integrate it into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Further, “modifies” is stated with a high level of generality, and therefore is considered generally linking the abstract idea to the field of endeavor, in this case a cleaning process of a belt (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN FLANAGAN BERGNER whose telephone number is (571)270-1133. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Joshua Allen can be reached on 571-270-3176. 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.
/ERIN F BERGNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713